National
Levin doubts votes for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Sen. Carl Levin (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
A key senator who opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is doubtful that sufficient support exists to repeal the law this year as he continues to push for a legislative moratorium on discharges.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters following a hearing Thursday he’d favor legislation to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year, but said there “will be great difficulty in succeeding in repeal.”
“I’m in favor of repeal, but I don’t favor going to a vote if it’s going to be a setback for those of us who think the program should be repealed,” he said. “I can take a whip check, but I think there’s a real problem … getting repeal approved.”
Fearing a lack of votes, Levin said he’s pushing for a legislative moratorium. The senator noted that such a measure would be “logical” because it doesn’t predetermine the outcome of the Pentagon study currently underway.
“Once the commander-in-chief says people shouldn’t be discharged for simply being gay, I think there’s real dilemma,” he said. “And when we think about that dilemma … hopefully, we’ll lead people to see that the moratorium is an attractive position because it doesn’t prejudge the outcome.”
Levin said he wants a legal opinion of the validity of a moratorium as well as what will happen with pending discharges as the Pentagon completes its review.
Asked whether the White House has been pushing for a moratorium as a way to address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year, Levin replied, “Not to me. They may have in some other place.”
But groups opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are reluctant to embrace a moratorium and say there’s still an opportunity this year for repealing the law outright. In an organizational statement sent by spokesperson Trevor Thomas, the Human Rights Campaign emphasized the possibility of repeal this year.
“We believe the votes to repeal this failed law can be found and everyone who wants to see ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ end needs to strenuously lobby their elected leaders,” says the statement.
Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was similarly bullish in a statement on passing full repeal this year.
“It’s too early to be talking about … half measures like a moratorium,” he said. “We’re focused squarely on getting full, permanent repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] in the defense authorization bill.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he would support any measure that “had a realistic chance” of alleviating the burden on gay service members, but noted that he was unconvinced a moratorium would be a politically easier vote than outright repeal.
“We’ve heard from some offices on the Hill that they don’t see a practical difference between the two,” he said. “So if there’s going to be a vote on anything this year, we would like it to be on full repeal.”
Nicholson said he would much prefer a push for a vote on full repeal “with modifications” rather than “settle for an equally tough vote on a temporary moratorium.”
During the hearing Thursday, lawmakers pressed Navy and Marine Corps leaders on their views on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
When Levin asked witnesses whether they support repeal of the 1993 law at this time, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said he favors repeal but also supports the study advanced earlier this month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
“Since ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a law, whatever happens resides in Congress,” he said. “I support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and I think the president has come up with a very practical and workable way to do that.”
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway reiterated their support for the Pentagon’s review as they had done in congressional testimony Wednesday.
But Conway said he wouldn’t want any change to undermine military readiness, and noted that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is working. He advised against any change at this time.
“At this point, I think the current policy works,” he said. “My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, to the president, would be to keep the law such as it is.”
In a statement, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis rebuked Conway for his remarks, saying the commandant was having his position both ways by supporting a study geared toward ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and opposing repeal at this time.
“General Conway was the only chief to say to Congress this week that the law is ‘working,’” Sarvis said. “It is not working. Having a law on the books that fires talented troops, at a time of two wars when all manpower is needed, is not effective and does not enhance the performance and readiness of the force.”
During the hearing, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who’s slated next week to introduce Senate repeal legislation, said he agreed with Conway that overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be “held up to the standard of the military readiness.”
“I’m supportive of the end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” he said. “I believe it’s the fair and right thing to do, but in the end … this has to pass the test of military readiness.”
Lieberman said he believes repeal will pass this test based on what’s happened in other countries that have lifted their bans on open service.
“I hope that we will conclude repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will enhance military readiness, but that’s yet to be determined as the study goes on,” he said.
The issue of what the United States can learn from foreign militaries in implementing repeal also emerged during the hearing. Roughead said the working group was necessary to examine the impact on repeal on the U.S. Navy. He said other studies on the effect of repeal on other navies that have lifted bans on open service don’t address the consequences of repeal in the United States.
“While I have high regard for those other forces, they are not us, they do not come from our culture, they do not come from the beliefs that young men and bring into the service,” he said.
Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire” and research fellow at the Palm Center, has emphasized in arguments in favor of repeal how other countries have lifted bans on open service. Responding to Roughead, Frank said the United States can learn from these countries on this open service as it has on other issues.
“There’s no question that each culture is different, each military is different,” he said. “But the U.S. military has repeatedly looked to other militaries to study issues, including this issue, as well as housing and health and personnel management.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Risking it all for love during World War II
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
