National
Santorum to gay soldier: ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal is ‘tragic’
Gay soldier asks question on LGBT rights at GOP debate
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum reiterated his support for reinstating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Thursday in response to a question asked by a gay soldier serving in Iraq during a presidential debate.
Santorum — one of nine GOP presidential hopefuls who attended the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando, Fla. — said he’d reinstitute the military’s gay ban but suggested he would allow troops who have already come out to continue serving.
The question came via video from an Army soldier serving in Iraq identified as Stephen Hill. The service member said he was gay during the video and asked if debate participants would rollback LGBT advances in the military that have been achieved under President Obama.
“In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job,” the soldier said. “My question is: under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress we’ve made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”
In response to the question, which was audibly booed by audience members during the debate, Santorum said, “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.”
Santorum maintained repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — the 18-year-old ban on open service that officially came to an end Tuesday — amounts to affording special protections to gay troops.
“The fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military — that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege in removing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ I think tries to inject social policy into the military,” Santorum said. “And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.”
Santorum continued, “We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient in protecting our men and women in uniform, and I believe this undermines that ability.”
The audience shouted in approval and applauded as the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania made his remarks.
Pressed by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on what he would do with troops like Hill who are in service but already out, Santorum replied, “What we’re doing is social experimentation. That’s tragic.”
Santorum then restated his pledge to reinstitute “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as he maintained service members who are already out should be excluded from expulsion.
“I would just say that going forward, we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president: period,” Santorum said. “That policy would be reinstituted, and as far as people who are in it, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration.”
But then, in a seeming contradiction, Santorum said he’d “move forward with conforming with what was happening in the past,” under which he said “sex is not an issue. ”
“It should not be an issue. Leave it alone,” Santorum said. “Keep it to yourself — whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual.”
Gay GOP groups railed against Santorum in response to the answer he gave to the gay service member during the debate.
In a joint statement, Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, and Chris Barron, chair of the organization, said Santorum “disrespected” troops and owes the soldier who asked the question “an immediate apology.”
“That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done — put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life,” LaSalvia and Barron said. “It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.”
LaSalvia and Barron noted that Hill is serving in the Iraq war, an operation that Santorum said he supports.
“How can Senator Santorum claim to support this war if he doesn’t support the brave men and women who are fighting it?” LaSalvia and Barron said.
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, said Santorum gave a “shameful response” to the service member and “was incoherent and out of touch.”
“America’s uniformed leaders support gays and lesbians serving alongside their colleagues with dignity and respect,” said Cooper, who’s also an Iraq combat veteran and current Army Reserve officer.
“Santorum’s divisive and homophobic remarks do not befit a commander-in-chief,” Cooper continued. “Americans want to hear about how our next president is going to cut our national debt, advocate for a confident foreign policy and most importantly help let the private sector thrive to create jobs.”
It’s not the first time Santorum has said he’d reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He affirmed he would institute the military’s gay ban when Think Progress asked him about the issue in April.
Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has also said she’d reinstitute “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if elected to the White House.
Watch the video here (via Think Progress):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKtzOjAWGIE&feature=player_embedded
UPDATE: In a subsequent appearance Friday on Fox News, Santorum said he condemns those in the audience who booed Hill, although the candidate added he heard no jeers during the debate.
“I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” Santorum said. “That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he is safe. I hope he returns safely and does his mission well.”
Santorum continued, “I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them, but, as you know, when you’re inside that sort of environment, you’re sort of focused on the question and formulating your answer, and I just didn’t hear those couples of boos that were out there. But certainly had I, I would have said, ‘Don’t do that. This man is a serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.'”
Watch the video here (via Think Progress):
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.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
