Connect with us

Local

Choi trial opens with clash over White House protest rules

Defense to argue that activist didn’t break the law

Published

on

Dan Choi and 12 other LGBT activists attracted national media attention on Nov. 15, 2010, when they handcuffed themselves to the White House fence.

A lawyer representing gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi questioned five U.S. Park Police officers Monday over the validity of their decision to arrest Choi last November after he handcuffed himself to the White House fence to protest the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Defense attorney Robert Feldman asked the questions while cross-examining the officers during the first day of Choi’s trial at U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Choi faces a possible sentence of six months in jail or a $5,000 fine if convicted on a misdemeanor charge of disobeying a lawful order to disengage from the fence.

Magistrate Judge John Facciola is presiding over the trial, which was expected to continue through Tuesday and possibly part of the day on Wednesday.

Choi and 12 other LGBT activists attracted national media attention on Nov. 15, 2010, when they handcuffed themselves to the White House fence. About 75 supporters who assembled across the street in Lafayette Park cheered and chanted slogans for LGBT equality while Park Police removed the handcuffs with cable cutters and placed Choi and the other protesters under arrest.

In May of this year, the 12 others who were arrested agreed to a government offer to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for the government dismissing the case against them in six months if the activists don’t get arrested during that period for any reason, including a similar civil disobedience protest.

Choi told reporters at a news conference outside the federal courthouse Monday, after the trial recessed for the day, that he rejected the government’s plea bargain offer because he believes the law and regulation used to arrest him is unconstitutional.

“I believe there is no law that, in the history of this country, abridges freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to protest for redress of grievances, which were clear and made plain by all of the defendants,” he said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the prosecutor in the case, called five Park Police officers and a U.S. Park Ranger as government witnesses on Monday. Under questioning from George, they testified that they had no intention of singling out the protesters for their political beliefs or because of their sexual orientation.

Feldman released an e-mail sent to the defense on Friday by George that extended another offer for Choi to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for the dismissal of the case by the government if Choi refrained from getting arrested for the next four months.

Feldman said Choi responded by saying he would accept the offer only on condition that the government issue a public apology to Choi in court on Monday for the arrest and prosecution against him. Feldman said the government rejected the conditions, prompting Choi to turn down the offer.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office said the office would have no comment on the case while the trial is in progress.

Park Police Lt. Robert Lachance, who led a team of officers assigned to arrest the protesters, testified that an assistant solicitor general at the Department of Interior, which has jurisdiction over the Park Police, advised him that the act of chaining oneself to the White House fence violated a federal regulation against actions that pose a threat to public safety, obstruct traffic, and potentially prevent “emergency responders” from carrying out their work.

At the news conference, Feldman said he plans to argue at the trial that Choi’s action at the White House fence did not violate the regulation and statute cited by the Park Police and by prosecutor George.

“It’s uncontroverted that Lt. Choi is no threat to the public safety whatsoever,” said Feldman. “Neither does he obstruct traffic, which is the second part of the regulation.”

Feldman said he would also argue that the regulation used by authorities to arrest Choi applies only to the sidewalk next to the White House fence. He noted that Choi and the other protesters were standing on a masonry ledge that rises above the sidewalk and serves as an anchor for the White House fence.

“It’s very clear that my client was never on the sidewalk,” Feldman said.  “He was on the masonry fence, which is above the sidewalk. And the warnings from Lt. Lachance said, ‘Get off the sidewalk.’ How can you get off the sidewalk if you were never on the sidewalk?”

He said he would also argue that Choi was unable to hear the warning that Lachance made to the protesters through a loudspeaker brought to the scene by Park Police. Lachance testified that he read a scripted message three times ordering the protesters to leave the fence and warning them they would be arrested if they did not comply with that order.

Feldman said Lachance’s warnings were drowned out by loud shouts and chants by Choi and the other 12 protesters handcuffed to the fence as well as by dozens of other protesters assembled in Lafayette Park.

The chants and shouts could be heard in a video recording of the protest that George played in the courtroom as part of a prosecution exhibit for the trial.

“There’s a cacophony of noise all around, and how can you possibly hear Lt. Lachance’s warnings to go away?” Feldman said at the news conference.

He said Choi would testify at the trial as the lead defense witness. One other defense witness, gay activist and former military Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II, was also scheduled to testify, Feldman said.

 

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

White House threatens Anne Arundel schools over gender identity policy

District faces possible legal action or loss of federal funding

Published

on

The U.S. Education and Justice Departments together determined Anne Arundel County’s school system violated federal student privacy law by withholding information about a student’s gender identity from the child’s parents. (Photo by Ulysses Muñoz for the Baltimore Banner)

By JESSICA CALEFATI | The Trump-Vance administration on Monday threatened to punish Anne Arundel County’s school system with legal action or the loss of federal funding for allegedly withholding information about a student’s gender identity and transition from the child’s parents.

The U.S. Education and Justice Departments together determined that the suburban Maryland district treats students’ gender identities as confidential medical information that cannot be shared with parents, in violation of federal student privacy law, according to a news release. A federal lawsuit filed against the district earlier this month made similar claims.

“As a mother and a grandmother, it is unconscionable that any school district would hide the most sensitive information about children in their care from their own parents,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “This is not only an affront to basic moral principles, but also to parents’ rights under federal law.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment

Former LG lost to Abigail Spanberger in 2025 gubernatorial race

Published

on

Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Less than a year after losing Virginia’s gubernatorial race, former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is campaigning across the state against constitutional amendments that would protect marriage equality and reproductive freedom.

She is launching a statewide “Life and Marriage Tour” ahead of November’s election.

Although same-sex couples can legally marry under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Virginia’s constitution still contains language that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Supporters say removing the language would protect marriage equality should federal precedent change.

The original ban was written into the state constitution in 2006. 

It has been hinted at in the past by Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas that he would consider revisiting Obergefell v. Hodges regarding contraception and marriage rights for same-sex couples. He stated this in his concurring opinion regarding the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which allows for state-level abortion bans.

Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said removing the ban would bring the state’s constitution in line with existing law.

“20 years after banning marriage equality, it’s time for our commonwealth to fully complete our evolution — and finish the job on protecting marriage equality for all,” Rahaman said.

In an email to supporters, Earle-Sears said these amendments “raise serious concerns” and could alter principles about which Virginians care.

“That is why our efforts are focused not only on informing voters, but also encouraging them to carefully consider these proposals and vote NO on both amendments,” Earle-Sears said.

Virginia voters will consider three constitutional amendments this November.

Earle-Sears is campaigning for voters to reject two of them: the Virginia Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment and the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.

A “Yes” vote on the Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment would include removing a provision that states marriage is between one man and one woman and prohibitng the state from denying a marriage license to two adults based on their sex, gender, or race, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.

In 2025, during debates against now Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Earle-Sears argued it is not discrimination to think that gay people should not be allowed to marry. She claims it conflicts with her faith.

According to ABC 8, in 2024 she wrote that she had a “moral opposition” to marriage equality, after former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed a marriage equality bill that barred denying marriage licenses based on sex, gender, or race.

According to the Virginia Department of Elections, a “Yes” vote on the Reproductive Freedom amendment supports adding a section to the state constitution that would give Virginians the right to make and carry out decisions regarding reproductive healthcare, except in specific exemptions.

The Virginia Department of Elections wrote that if accepted, the amendment would allow the state government to pass laws to regulate abortion care in the third trimester of pregnancy, but require abortion care when it is medically needed to protect the life and health of the pregnant person or because the fetus is not viable.

During the 2025 election cycle, Earle-Sears was clear on her anti-abortion stance.

According to the Virginia Independent, she utilized campaign funds to donate to the Family Foundation of Virginia. The group is a faith-based, anti-abortion, and anti-in vitro fertilization non-profit.

The “Life and Marriage Tour” will include traveling throughout Virginia to speak with citizens, churches, community organizations, and local leaders. The exact locations have yet to be announced.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. Council approves increased funding for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs

Increase attached to 2027 budget bill

Published

on

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser at the 2024 Pride month flag raising ceremony at the Wilson Building. (Washington Blade photo by Emma Hanna)

The D.C. Council on July 14 gave final approval for the city’s fiscal year 2027 budget that includes an amendment calling for increasing the number and size of funding grants that the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs provides for local organizations providing services for the LGBTQ community.

The amendment, called the “LGBTQ Community Grant Amendment Act of 2026,” was introduced earlier this year by D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Council’s only gay member.

The D.C. LGBTQ Budget Coalition called the Parker amendment “a historic measure that establishes the District’s most sustainable model for a vehicle for investing in LGBTQ communities.”

The Council approved the version of the FY 2027 budget bill with the attached Parker amendment in its first of two required votes on June 9. Shortly after voting unanimously to give final approval of an earlier version of the two-part budget measure on July 7 that includes the Parker amendment, the Council sent the bill to Mayor Muriel Bowser for her signature.  

Bowser has expressed strong opposition to several provisions in the $22 billion budget measure passed by the Council that are unrelated to the Parker amendment regarding the Office of LGBTQ Affairs. The mayor has yet to say whether she will sign, veto, or choose not to sign the bill.

The latter option would allow the bill to become law if Congress does not choose to overturn it during its required 30-day legislative review period for all D.C. bills. Political observers believe the Council will vote to override a veto if Bowser chooses to veto the bill.

When contacted by the Washington Blade on July 22 to determine where the mayor stands on the budget bill, mayoral spokesperson Daniel Gleick said only, there was “no update on the budget just yet.”

Among other things, the Parker amendment calls for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs to issue a $980,000 grant in FY 2027 to a private, nonprofit organization in partnership with the office “for the purpose of supporting programs that promote the welfare of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning community.”

It would allocate $680,000 of that funding total from existing funds from the city’s community affairs grants program and calls for $200,000 in newly appropriated funds.  

It says the organization selected would also initiate its own fundraising effort to expand the amount of funds beyond the amount the office would provide, enabling it to provide larger grants to a greater number of local LGBTQ organizations.

“The legislation arrives at a critical moment, as LGBTQ-serving organizations face unprecedented uncertainty,” the D.C. Budget Coalition said in its comment on the Parker amendment. “Growing demand for services is colliding with shrinking resources, federal attacks on LGBTQ programs, and ongoing threats to local funding streams,” the coalition’s statement says.

In what some observers have called a highly controversial action; the budget bill approved by the Council reverses and restores millions of dollars in budget cuts proposed by Bowser in the budget she submitted to the Council earlier this year.

Among other things, the Council’s budget preserves the current level of funding for housing vouchers, childcare, paid family leave, and other programs slated to be cut in the mayor’s proposed budget, according to a report by the Washington Post.

Bowser points out that the Council approved budget bill calls for using $150 million from the city’s reserve fund, which she and others have said could put the city in jeopardy in future years. The mayor has said the cuts were needed to prevent a major funding shortfall brought about by the action by Republicans in Congress to cut the city’s budget by over a billion dollars.     

Continue Reading

Popular