Connect with us

News

DOJ faces renewed call to provide benefits to gay veterans

Udall leads seven senators in requesting action from Obama administration

Published

on

Mark Udall, Democratic Party, United States Senate, Colorado, gay news, Washington Bladea
Mark Udall, Democratic Party, United States Senate, Colorado, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is renewing his call for the Obama administration to stop enforcing portions of Title 38 (Photo public domain).

Pressure is increasing on the Obama administration to ensure gay veterans have access to spousal benefits everywhere they go in the country as additional U.S. senators are joining others in a call for action.

In a letter dated Jan. 16 to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, seven senators — led by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) — call on the Obama administration to stop enforcing 103(c) of Title 38 to ensure gay veterans in same-sex marriages can receive spousal benefits.

“We believe taking this action is an important part of DOJ’s responsibility to implement and enforce the legal doctrine created in Windsor,” the senators writes. “Further, if the VA is able to apply 103(c) so that all marriages legally entered into will be recognized, it will provide continuity with the Department of Defense policy that applies to active duty service members and avoid a situation where the federal government is recognizing a person’s marriage one day and ignoring it the next.”

Joining Udall is signing the letter are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Colo.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) as well as lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

A portion of the law governing veterans’ benefits, 103(c) of Title 38, looks to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, in determining whether a couple is married. That means if a gay couple in which one partner is a veteran weds in a marriage-equality state like New York, but moves to non-marriage equality state like Colorado, the couple won’t be able to apply for these benefits.

The letter emphasizes that the place of residence rule for spousal benefits isn’t a hypothetical problem for gay couples because many have already been denied benefits under this statute. Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery.

“Over the last few months, there have been specific instances of legally married couples who were denied VA spousal benefits solely because of their gender and place of residence,” the letter states.

The Obama administration has already taken some action on this issue. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA, the Justice Department had announced in September the Obama administration wouldn’t enforce a portion of Title 38 that independently defines marriage in opposite-sex terms.

But no decision has been made on the place of residence rule of Title 38. The Obama administration has said it’s still reviewing whether it can stop enforcing 103(c) of the statute.

In the letter, the senators are critical about the length of time it’s taking to resolve this issue in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA in June.

“Unfortunately, nearly six months after that decision we continue to see specific cases where the federal government is withholding federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples,” the letter states. “This appears to be in conflict with the central principle of the Windsor decision, that the federal government should respect the lawful marriages of same-sex couples.”

Dena Iverson, a Justice Department, said in response to the missive, “We’re reviewing the letter.”

The continued enforcement of this 103(c) of Title 38 to deny benefits to gay couples has concerned lawmakers for some time.

In November, Udall wrote a letter on his own to the Justice Department calling on the Obama administration to stop enforcing the place of residence rule to discriminate against gay veterans. Earlier this month, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) wrote a similar letter asking the Obama administration to cease enforcement, citing issues that gay veterans are having with obtaining VA loans.

LGBT groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and American Military Partners Association, have said they share the concerns about the place of residence rule under Title 38. HRC has previously called for clarity from the administration on whether or not it can cease enforcing that section of the law to discriminate against gay couples.

Stephen Peters, AMPA president, reiterated his previous call for the Obama administration to take action in a statement.

“No veteran should be treated differently by the federal government just because he or she is married to someone of the same-gender or lives in a state that does not value the diversity of his or her family,” Peters said.

Alex Nicholson, who’s gay and legislative director of Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, said his organization “absolutely” shares the concerns expressed in the letter.

“IAVA strongly believes that all veterans are entitled to fair and equal treatment with respect to benefits and services provided by the VA,” Nicholson said. “The Supreme Court has been clear that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal recognition and benefits, so the administration must proactively resolve the lingering technicalities that have thus far prevented the VA from complying.”

It remains to be seen whether Holder will address this issue — as well as other post-DOMA issues, such as granting Social Security survivor and pension benefits to married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states — in any of his upcoming public appearances. He’s set to deliver testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29 and is scheduled as the keynote speaker at HRC’s Greater New York Gala on Feb. 8.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article was incorrect about the date on which Holder would deliver testimony before the Senate. The Blade regrets the error.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Pam Bondi ousted as attorney general

Donald Trump announced firing on Thursday

Published

on

Now former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.

“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”

Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.

The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.

Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.

The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.

Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.

“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”

Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.

The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.

The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.

Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.

Continue Reading

The White House

VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night

Eugene Ramirez booed first family at Kennedy Center

Published

on

Eugene Ramirez outside of the Kennedy Center after the ordeal, holding a First Amendment rights protest sign he found. (Photo courtesy of Eugene Ramirez)

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the opening night of “Chicago” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Tuesday. They were greeted by a mix of cheers, applause, and some audible boos.

Among them was Eugene Ramirez, a gay Washington resident, who later shared his account of the night after being briefly detained by security for booing the president and giving a thumbs-down gesture — an expression of what many would call a textbook definition of constitutionally protected speech to criticize the government.

Ramirez attended the opening night performance with a group of friends, hoping to catch a final show before the center undergoes two years of major changes under Trump oversight. The musical, based on a 1926 play of the same name, has become synonymous with Broadway success.

With music by John Kander, lyrics by Fred Ebb, and a book by Ebb and Bob Fosse, “Chicago” has cemented itself as a cultural staple — known for its signature Fosse choreography, stripped-down staging, and sleek, campy aesthetic. The story follows Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, women who murder their husbands but — with the help of the manipulative, charismatic, and narcissistic attorney Billy Flynn — walk away scot-free.

It remains the longest-running American musical in Broadway history, and its 2002 film adaptation famously won the Academy Award for Best Picture. On this night, however, the production also became the backdrop for a very modern moment of political protest.

“I accompanied five friends to opening night of ‘Chicago’, as a way to enjoy a final performance in the Kennedy Center as we know it,” Ramirez began to recount to the Washington Blade, describing the moment his group settled into their seats inside the ornate Opera House theater.

Just before the performance began, the twice impeached president and first lady appeared in the balcony box, drawing immediate attention from the audience below. Theatergoers stood, cheered, clapped, and waved, while Ramirez made a different choice.

While accounts of the crowd’s reaction have varied, Ramirez said his response was intentional, immediate, and within his rights. Moments after booing and giving a thumbs-down while recording on his iPhone, security intervened.

The video of Ramirez booing the Trump’s is here:

“Within moments, the director [of security] and another guard approached and escorted me to a side area where several other security guards were waiting,” he said. “I was detained until everyone was seated and the lights dimmed.”

As he was escorted away, Ramirez said his instincts as a journalist kicked in. A former lead anchor for Sinclair’s national evening news broadcast, he said the situation immediately felt off — or more aptly put — as if he could see the strings being pulled from someone attempting to control the narrative.

“Journalism is a vocation, not just a job. I immediately knew there wasn’t just an uncomfortable interaction with security,” he said. “The Kennedy Center is a federally funded cultural institution, and being questioned about speech related to the president in that setting felt like something the public should know about.”

Ramirez explained the difference between a standard visit by a public official and this performance: the president’s appearance wasn’t just ceremonial; it was very clearly a media moment.

“The White House press pool was there, and it was clear this was an effort to manage the president’s image in the media,” Ramirez continued. “The irony was not lost on me that this was happening on opening night of ‘Chicago’, a musical about manipulating the press to shape public perception.”

According to Ramirez, the explanation he received from Kennedy Center Director of Safety and Security Karles C. Jackson Sr., was brief, but illuminating.

“He said, ‘they don’t want booing,’ and even called out my thumbs-down gesture. He never clarified who ‘they’ were, but whether it was the administration or the Kennedy Center, the distinction felt meaningless,” he explained. “Mr. Jackson ultimately told me he was just trying to do his job, shook my hand, and allowed me to return to my seat once the lights dimmed and the overture started playing.”

Ramirez said he didn’t blame the guard individually, noting the broader context of the Kennedy Center’s uncertain future and the pressures staff were under.

“With the center closing in the coming months, some of these security guards being pressured to restrict our freedom of speech may only have a few weeks of work left.”

He believes the decision to remove him was driven less by disruption than optics, particularly given the presence of the press.

“It was very clearly about protection — whether protecting the president from visible dissent, or his image before the media present. There was no disruption as almost everyone was standing and reacting loudly to the arrival of the president and first lady, with cheers, applause, and hand gestures. The difference was that my reaction, unlike most, was negative.”

Drawing on his experience covering public officials, Ramirez said the incident felt more about controlling perception than security.

“Usually, law enforcement may monitor or intervene if there’s a disruption, but here there was no disruption at all. Simply expressing dissent in a public, cultural space drew the attention of security. It made it feel less like a matter of decorum and more like an effort to control the narrative around the president,” he said. “It’s about what happens when dissent is treated as disruption rather than a right.”

“The show hadn’t started. I threatened no one. Billy Flynn would have approved of the optics. The rest of us should be paying attention.”

Ramirez framed the incident as part of a broader constitutional concern, one that is plaguing the Trump-Vance administration as they continue to reject rules and normalcy set forth by other reserved presidents.

“Being singled out by security at a federally funded institution for expressing dissent shouldn’t be brushed off; it undermines the First Amendment,” he said, looking at it slightly distanced from it now. “Being of Cuban heritage, and a journalist, it’s a right I’m not willing to give up readily.”

“Publicly funded cultural institutions should allow visible dissent, even in politically charged moments,” he added. “Of course, I understand the need to manage disruptions during a performance, but that was not the case here.”

The themes of “Chicago”, a long-running satire about media manipulation and public perception, added another layer of irony to the experience, Ramirez explained.

“The satire truly leapt off the stage! A show about controlling the narrative, manipulating the press, and covering up truths by leaning on showmanship and distractions. The show is decades old, but could’ve been written today. We’re being razzle-dazzled daily and it’s getting harder to tell fact from fiction, no matter where you get your news.”

He, being gay, also acknowledged how hard it must have been for the performers on stage, assuming that at least some in the cast were also members of the LGBTQ community — and artists — two things Trump doesn’t always get along with.

“It was not lost on me that many of the actors on that stage, that the president and first lady presumably applauded, are members of the LGBTQ community which this administration has rolled back protections for under the guise of religious liberty and free speech, resulting in blatant discrimination.”

He pointed to a particular number that felt surreal given the circumstances.

“Its ‘Razzle Dazzle’ number celebrates keeping audiences off balance; at its climax, a massive American flag descends as the song celebrates blinding audiences to what is real. Watching that scene after being detained for a thumbs-down was surreal.”

Ramirez said the show’s closing lines were especially sharp given the presidential audience and what he just experienced.

“At the end of the show,

Velma says: ‘You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America.’

Roxie replies: ‘And for what America stands for.’

Velma: ‘But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is.’

Roxie: ‘So we’d just like to say thank you and God bless you.’

They had both just gotten away with murder!”

His closing lines, however, were a bit more pointed than “scintillating sinners” Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly’s were in the show.

“Democracy only works when citizens are allowed to boo,” he said. “Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, ‘Chicago’ made that point better than I ever could.”

The Blade reached out to the Kennedy Center but did not receive a comment back.

Continue Reading

Idaho

Idaho Gov. signs harshest anti-trans bathroom bill in the country

Idaho continues to lead the country in anti-LGBTQ legislation, passing two laws restricting rights this week.

Published

on

Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed into law a bill that criminalizes transgender people for using bathrooms that align with their gender identity rather than their assigned sex at birth, including in private businesses. Little signed the bill Tuesday afternoon — just as demonstrators rallied on the Capitol steps in Boise for Transgender Day of Visibility.

The law takes effect July 1.

House Bill 752 allows the government to charge people who “knowingly and willfully” enter bathrooms that do not align with their assigned sex at birth with jail time, making this the most restrictive bathroom bill in the nation. The vote had no issue passing in the Republican supermajority-controlled legislature, with 54 ayes and 15 nays in the House and 28 ayes and 7 nays in the Senate.

The bill applies to government-owned buildings and places of public accommodation, including any business (either publicly or privately owned) or space that is open to the public and offers goods, services, or facilities. These include restaurants (bars, cafes), lodging (hotels, motels, inns), entertainment and recreational spaces (gyms, theaters, sports venues, pools), healthcare and service buildings (hospitals, clinics, professional offices), and transportation-related spaces (including airports and bus stations).

A first offense carries a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second offense, or any additional offense within five years, is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The bill’s sponsor, Coeur d’Alene Republican Sen. Ben Toews, said it reflects the “common sense realities” that Idahoans have — despite the issue not being “common sense” enough to be included in the state Republican Party’s official platform.

Republican legislators have deemed this, and similar measures restricting bathroom access to a person’s sex at birth, a matter of “protecting privacy and safety,” according to a similar measure passed earlier this year. Yet this claim contradicts statements from officials working to protect safety, as well as available data on the matter — there is no evidence that trans individuals accessing gender-aligned bathrooms are a threat to safety or privacy.

This expansive and invasive legislative action appears to contradict what Gov. Brad Little says he and his party stand for. On his website, Little touts his efforts to remove red tape for Idahoans, saying they have “cut or simplified 95-percent of regulations” since 2019. Signing legislation that effectively requires policing who can use which bathroom runs counter to that goal — and, unlike the transgender bathroom bill, reducing government regulation is part of the party’s official platform.

“We believe the growth of government is unnecessary and has a negative impact on both the conduct of business and our individual lives,” the Idaho Republican Party platform reads. “We endorse the review of all government programs and encourage their assumption by private enterprise where appropriate and workable. Programs which are outside of government’s constitutional obligations, not cost effective, or have outlived their usefulness should be terminated.”

The Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President, Bryan Lovell, wrote a letter to the legislature that having the responsibility to check a person’s sex at birth fall to police “presents significant practical enforcement challenges for law enforcement officers in the field.”

“In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate,” the letter said.

Sen. Ron Taylor, a Democrat from Hailey, said House Bill 752 is about discrimination. He said constituents told him they would move out of Idaho if it passed — because it would throw their transgender children in jail.

“Now maybe that’s what some of us want, is to chase a population that’s marginalized out of Idaho,” Taylor said. “But that’s not Idaho. Idaho was founded by a population that was marginalized.”

Idaho’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) went even farther to criticize the Little’s signature on House Bill 752, arguing the legislation does the opposite of its stated goal of reducing risks to the privacy and dignity of every Idahoan.

“The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism,” a statement from the organization founded in 1988 read. “As cisgender people who do not conform to rigid gender norms could face accusations, harassment, and arrest for using a public restroom.”

In addition to creating a criminal issue where there was none, the legislation opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation that taxpayers would ultimately have to pay for.

“When public institutions and local businesses are forced to engage in these expensive and unnecessary lawsuits, taxpayers and customers foot the bill,” the ACLU added.

Advocates for sexual health and gender freedom have called this legislation a full assault on transgender people’s right to exist in public, saying bills like this trigger harassment, increase violence against transgender people, and impose criminal penalties for not conforming to traditional gender roles.

Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates Idaho called the bill “the most extreme anti-transgender bathroom ban in the nation.”

This is not the only anti-LGBTQ action the governor has taken. He signed a bill earlier that morning to fine cities for flying the LGBTQ+ pride flag, which, according to Idaho Capital Sun, was retaliatory action against Boise’s City Council for a vote last year declaring the pride flag and the organ donor flag as official flags — a workaround to a previous state flag ban the Legislature passed last year.

Boise Mayor Lauren McLean said the city had been flying the pride flag for a decade, but will remove it for the time being to prevent a fine that would “ultimately fall on the taxpayers of Boise to shoulder.”

“But let me be clear: Boise’s values have not changed, and they are not defined by any single action taken at the Statehouse,” McLean said after removing the Pride flag from the official pole.

This approach to LGBTQ poltics reflects a broader trend among Republicans in power in the state. In 2020, Idaho became the first state to ban transgender girls and women from competing on sports teams that align with their gender identity, which is currently being challenged in the United States Supreme Court. In 2023, state lawmakers made it a felony for doctors to provide gender-affirming health care to transgender youth. In 2024, lawmakers expanded the ban to apply to taxpayer funds and government property, forbidding Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care.

Continue Reading

Popular