News
Defense bill contains gay-related provisions
Expanded conscience protections; sodomy ban repealed in military code
The defense authorization passed by Congress includes gay-related provisions. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Congress passed major defense budget legislation on Thursday that includes provisions related to the LGBT community — both good and bad — in the aftermath of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill contains an expansion of the conscience protections for service members under current law, but also repeals the sodomy ban under military law and calls for a report on HIV policy within the U.S. military.
The Senate approved late Thursday by a vote of 84-15 a $630 billion version of the bill, which primarily reauthorizes pay for troops and funding for military programs. The House already approved the legislation, so it’s heading to President Obama’s desk.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the retiring chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement upon passage of the legislation praising the bipartisan nature of its approval.
“Tonight we passed legislation that is good for our national security, and for the men and women who protect us and their families,” Levin said. “The Senate vote is a strong bipartisan statement that, despite our differences, we can come together and accomplish important business for the good of the country.”
Under Section 532, the legislation contains an expansion of the conscience provision that was enacted as part of last year’s defense authorization bill. Under this provision, the armed services shall accommodate service members’ expression of their beliefs — unless it would have an adverse impact on military readiness or good order and discipline.
The language was inserted by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) during the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2014 defense authorization. It’s along the lines of a conscience amendment submitted by Rep. Mike Fleming (R-La.) during the House Armed Services Committee markup of its version of the bill, but not quite as strong. LGBT advocates decried the House version of the amendment as a means to enable service members to discriminate and harass their gay colleagues.
A related provision, Section 533, instructs the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress no longer than 18 months after the bill is signed into law on incidents of adverse personnel actions or discrimination against troops based on their moral beliefs.
Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council, praised Congress in a statement over inclusion of the provision, which he said is a means for “protecting the right of service members to freely practice and express their faith.”
“Congress acted appropriately after investigating numerous incidents involving service members who have had their careers threatened, and harassed simply for practicing their faith in a real and tangible way,” Perkins said. “The religious liberty violations have grown so frequent in recent years leading many service members to report being too fearful to share their faith.”
After the enactment of the earlier conscience provision under the previous defense authorization bill, Obama said the Pentagon assured him the language wouldn’t change how the armed forces operated. The Defense Department didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on how implementation will work this time around.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the inclusion of the conscience provision in the defense authorization bill was unnecessary.
“The ACLU believes that the Constitution and existing laws and regulations already offer all members of the Armed Forces, including chaplains, strong protections for their religious beliefs,” Thompson said.
Fred Sainz, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of communications, expressed a similar sentiment that the provision is unnecessary because service members’ religious views are already protected under current policy.
“Although this amendment is unnecessary, Congress dropped a different version adopted by the House of Representatives that would have been truly harmful, requiring the military to accommodate beliefs, actions, and speech of service members unless the armed forces could prove ‘actual harm’ to good order and discipline,” Sainz said.
But the legislation as a whole also contains positive language sought by LGBT advocates in the aftermath of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. Among these provisions is Section 1707 — repeal of the ban on sodomy for gay and straight service members under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The provision was added by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).
In its place, the legislation inserts into military code a provision making “unnatural carnal copulation” with another person “by force” subject to a court martial. The provision also reasserts the ban on bestiality in military code.
Although the sodomy ban was rarely enforced for service members engaging in consensual sex in private, it has remained on the books and been used to prosecute troops in combination with additional infractions.
ACLU’s Thompson said the repeal of the sodomy ban is an important step forward to guarantee the liberty of service members — gay and straight — in the aftermath of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“This is a welcome and overdue step forward that respects the liberty and privacy of all service members, and is especially significant for gay and lesbian service members whose intimate relationships, including marriages, were labeled a violation of military criminal law,” Thompson said. “Removing this stigmatizing and discriminatory provision from the Uniform Code of Military Justice advances the promise of equal treatment for all military personnel.”
Additionally, under Section 572, the legislation directs the Pentagon to submit a report to Congress no later than 180 days after the bill is signed into law on personnel policies regarding service members with HIV or Hepatitis B. The bill directs the Pentagon to include a description of the policies as well as related retention, deployment and disciplinary actions as well as an assessment of whether these policies are evidence-based and medically accurate.
According to the LGBT military group SPART*A, service members become non-deployable once they’re discovered to have HIV; can’t commission as an officer or warrant officer; can’t fly aircraft or work in any jobs requiring a flight physical; are restricted to stateside duty assignments (with the exception of the Navy); and are not eligible for special schools such as Ranger, Special Forces or other special ops jobs.
Thompson said the provision is welcome because it will examine whether the military’s current HIV policy is appropriate or outdated.
“This review is welcome and overdue becausemany of our laws, policies, and regulations regarding HIV were written at a time when we knew far less about the routes and risks of HIV transmission, and prior to the development of effective HIV treatment,” Thompson said.
Another important non-LGBT provision in the defense authorization bill replaces foreign transfer restrictions in current law to enable President Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The bill also seeks to aid victims of sexual assault in the military by criminalizing retaliation against victims who report it, preventing military commanders from overturning jury convictions and protecting victims of sexual assault from abusive treatment during pre-trial proceedings.
The LGBT group Freedom to Work had said insertion of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act into the defense authorization bill could be a viable way to pass the measure. However, prior to ENDA’s passage in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Washington Blade such inclusion wasn’t a viable option because he didn’t know if the larger defense bill would pass.
On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement saying the administration has concerns with certain aspects of the legislation, but supports it overall.
“Although the bill includes a number of provisions that restrict or limit the Defense Department’s ability to align military capabilities and force structure with the President’s strategy and implement certain efficiencies, overall the Administration is pleased with the modifications and improvements contained in the bill that address most of the Administration’s significant objections with earlier versions regarding these issues,” Carney said. “The Administration supports passage of the legislation.”
Federal Government
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Andry Hernández Romero had asked for asylum in US
A gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who the U.S. “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador has filed a claim against the federal government.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who represents Andry Hernández Romero, on Friday announced their client and five other Venezuelans who the Trump-Vance administration “forcibly removed” to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, filed “administrative claims” under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The White House on Feb. 20, 2025, designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump less than a month later invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The White House then “forcibly removed” Hernández, who had been pursuing his asylum case in the U.S., and more than 250 other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
Hernández was held at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT, until his release on July 18, 2025. Hernández, who is back in Venezuela, claims he suffered physical and sexual abuse while at CECOT.
“As a Venezuelan citizen with no criminal record anywhere in the world, I would like to tell not only the government of the United States but governments everywhere that no human being is illegal,” said Hernández in the Immigrant Defenders Law Center press release. “The practice of judging whole communities for the wrongdoing of a single individual must end. Governments should use their power to help every person in the nation become more aware and informed, to strengthen our cultures and build a stronger generation with principles and values — one that multiplies the positive instead of destroying unfulfilled dreams and opportunities.”
Immigrant Defenders Law Center filed claims on behalf of Hernández and the five other Venezuelans less than three months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.
Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges. Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, is Venezuela’s acting president.
‘Due process and accountability cannot be optional’
Immigrant Defenders Law Center on Friday also made the following demands:
- The Trump administration must officially release the names of all people the United States sent to CECOT to ensure that everyone has been or will be released.
- The federal government must clear the names of the 252 men wrongfully labeled as criminal gang members of Tren de Aragua.
- DHS (Department of Homeland Security) must end the practice of outsourcing torture through third‑country removals, restore humanitarian parole, and rebuild a functioning, humane asylum system.
- DHS must reinstate Temporary Protected Status for all individuals who cannot safely return to their home countries, halt mass deportations and unlawful raids and arrests, and guarantee due process for everyone navigating the immigration system.
- Congress must pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act.
“In all my years as an immigration attorney, I have never seen a client simply vanish in the middle of their case with no explanation,” said Immigration Defenders Legal Fund Legal Services Director Melissa Shepard. “In court, the government couldn’t even explain where he was — he had been disappeared.”
“When the government detains and transfers people in secrecy, without transparency or access to the courts, it tears at the basic protections a democracy is supposed to guarantee,” added Shepard. “What this experience makes painfully clear is that due process and accountability cannot be optional. They are the only safeguards standing between people and the kind of lawlessness our clients suffered. We must end third country transfers, restore the asylum system, and humanitarian parole, and reinstate temporary protective status so this nightmare never happens again.”
The White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.
In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.
“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.
One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.
The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.
The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”
Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.
Ecuador
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
Pueden modificar el campo de género en su documento de identidad con requisitos
Por VICTOR H. CARREÑO | En una sentencia del 5 de febrero de 2026, la Corte Constitucional declaró inconstitucional el requisito legal de mayoría de edad para modificar el campo de sexo o género en la cédula de identidad y fija lineamientos para que adolescentes trans puedan cambiar estos datos.
El máximo organismo de control e interpretación constitucional incorpora dos requerimientos: que la persona adolescente se presente al procedimiento administrativo con sus padres y que informes psicosociales acrediten un grado de madurez.
El fallo resuelve una consulta de constitucionalidad de una unidad judicial que lleva una acción de protección contra el Registro Civil presentada por la familia de un adolescente trans que solicitó, en junio de 2023, modificar el campo de género en la cédula.
La institución se negó porque la Ley Orgánica de Gestión de la Identidad y Datos Civiles establece que la rectificación de sexo o género es un procedimiento para personas mayores de 18 años.
El adolescente, cuya identidad se protege en la sentencia, cuenta con el apoyo de sus padres en su transición, que inició en 2020. En una audiencia, su madre expuso que si bien en el ámbito familiar y en el sistema educativo se respeta la identidad de su hijo, fuera de estos hay situaciones, como en consultas médicas en el Seguro Social, en que debe presentar la cédula de él y quienes la reciben preguntan si es el documento equivocado.
En el desarrollo de la sentencia, la Corte expone por qué el requisito de tener mayoría de edad para acceder a la modificación de datos en la cédula es inconstitucional.
Entre varios motivos, explica que restringe los derechos al libre desarrollo de la personalidad e identidad, que la edad no puede exigirse como “criterio determinante y único” para determinar la madurez de un adolescente, y que la medida puede generar impactos negativos en el bienestar psicológico y emocional.
Por ello, indica que existen mecanismos alternativos como la evaluación individualizada, el acompañamiento técnico y la consideración del contexto familiar.
En ese sentido, la Corte dispone al Registro Civil que debe proceder al cambio de los datos de adolescentes trans cuando acudan acompañades de sus representantes legales y con el respaldo de informes psicosociales.
Estos informes, agrega la sentencia, deben ser de profesionales acreditados o de órganos técnicos públicos competentes que sean considerados por el Registro Civil.
El fallo tiene efectos para este caso y otros similares. A diferencia de otras sentencias, la Corte no ordena una reforma a la legislación.
La organización Silueta X, que difundió el caso en un comunicado el 11 de marzo, calificó el fallo como histórico y explicó que este crea jurisprudencia de cumplimiento obligatorio.
🏳️⚧️🌈Un chico trans de 15 años le dijo al Estado ecuatoriano “yo sé quién soy”. Y la Corte Constitucional le dio la razón. 🏛️✊
Este fallo es nuestro. Es tuyo.
🔗 Lee la comunicado completa en nuestra bio.#DerechosTransEcuador #SiluetaX #CorteConstitucional #AdolescentesTrans pic.twitter.com/aXE4FU9VeS
— Asociación SILUETA 'X' (@SiluetaX) March 11, 2026
Sin embargo, otras organizaciones cuestionan los requisitos. Fundación Pakta indica que si bien la sentencia derriba la barrera etaria de la mayoría de edad, la inclusión de informes psicosociales contradice la tendencia global y regional hacia la despatologización.
Pakta menciona, por ejemplo, la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, instrumento que reconoce la identidad autopercebida de las personas y los derechos patrimoniales de parejas del mismo sexo.
El documento, recuerda Pakta en un comunicado, establece que para el reconocimiento de la identidad de género no se debe exigir certificados médicos ni psicológicos. Además, que la Organización Mundial de la Salud reconoció que la identidad trans no es una patología psiquiátrica.
Mientras que la activista Nua Fuentes, de Proyecto Transgénero, considera que los requisitos impuestos por la Corte pueden ser problemáticos. Menciona que frente al desconocimiento y prejuicios, profesionales de salud patologizan la identidad trans.
La Sentencia 4-24-CN/26 sobre la inconstitucionalidad de negar a adolescentes trans cambio de su sexo o género en la cédula es un acto que entreabre la puerta para los derechos, pero también sostiene algunas barreras y es problemático para adolescentes trans #Ecuador
Abro hilo🧵 pic.twitter.com/aKBUlmnU1A— Nua Elizabeth Fuentes Aguirre (@NuaEliz) March 11, 2026
Además, señala que puede haber casos de que la familia y psicólogos expresen rechazo a la identidad trans y limiten los derechos de adolescentes trans. O también menciona casos de abandono de niñes y adolescentes trans y pregunta cómo reconocer su identidad si no cumplen con el requisito de acudir sin representantes legales.
Los condicionamientos para el cambio del campo de sexo o género en la cédula para adolescentes trans marcan también una diferencia con el procedimiento en personas trans de más de 18 años, pues estas —desde las reformas vigentes en 2024— no deben presentar requisitos. Solo su declaración expresa de ser una persona trans que desea que los datos de su cédula estén conformes a su identidad de género.
La madurez de niñeces y adolescencias ha sido un tema abordado en convenciones o instrumentos internacionales. La Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño de la ONU del 2009 es contundente al reconocerles como seres autónomos y capaces de formar sus propias opiniones a través de la experiencia, el entorno, las expectativas sociales y culturales.
Esta convención es mencionada en una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional en que reconoció la identidad de infancias y adolescencias trans en el sistema educativo.
En las Observaciones Generales del Comité de los Derechos del Niño, documentos de interpretación para los alcances de la mencionada Convención, se explica que la madurez es “la capacidad de comprender y evaluar las consecuencias de un asunto determinado”, lo cual debe considerarse en relación con su capacidad individual, contextos, entornos, experiencias de vida y familiar, desarrollo psicológico y no únicamente con su edad biológica.
Además, que la edad cronológica no determina la evolución de las capacidades de las niñeces y adolescencias porque estas crecen a lo largo del tiempo.
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
Gay Cameroonian immigrant will be freed from ICE detention — for now
Laverne Cox, Liza Minnelli among authors with new books
Too afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
Claudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Man stuck in Lebanon as Iran war escalates
CAMP Rehoboth hires new executive director
-
Health5 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Colombia5 days ago
Claudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
-
The White House4 days ago
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
-
Iran4 days ago
Man stuck in Lebanon as Iran war escalates
