Connect with us

National

Pentagon working with gay groups on ‘Don’t Ask’ review

Defense officials seek advice, are ‘open and inclusive’

Published

14 years ago

on

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay organizations working to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are enjoying an open relationship with the Pentagon working group reviewing the law as they continue to express concerns about the study deviating from its purpose.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen established the working group following a Feb. 2 hearing on Capitol Hill as a way to examine how to implement an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” should Congress repeal the law. The work is expected to be completed Dec. 1.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization has had a positive engagement with the working group since its inception.

“They brought us in — in the very beginning — to initially brief us on what they were planning to do, to answer any questions we had,” he said. “They were very open and inclusive, but not only to us. They were that way with our opposition as well.”

In one such conversation, Nicholson said the working group held a conference call to answer questions about the new regulations that were instituted last month to relax the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“There was a little bit of a worry, I think, in the beginning that maybe them bringing us in, being so open in answering questions, was a one-time, token gesture,” Nicholson said. “I’m pleased to say now it’s my impression that those worries, at least so far, have been unfounded. The working group has a primary point of contact for us within the Department of Defense, and that point of contact has been extremely open and extremely available.”

Nicholson said Servicemembers United first spoke with someone at the working group to express concern about the group’s mandate and noted it would set a bad precedent to poll the force on potential policy changes.

“The working group responded to that by telling us that the terms of reference have been issued, they are what they are and they don’t have control over them,” he said.

In a second round of suggestions, Nicholson said Servicemembers United passed along some ideas for the methodology the working group could institute to examine how to implement repeal. Some of the recommendations, he noted, were to advise against town hall meetings and focus groups to poll the force.

“Focus groups are a bad idea because of the phenomena of group think and posturing,” he said. “On any perceived controversial issue, you’re going to get a much a different set of answers if you ask people about it in a group rather than asking them one on one.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, also said his organization’s staff have had weekly conversations and meetings with the working group.

“I think it’s been positive, ongoing,” he said. “It’s not a process that we asked for, or that we think is needed, but we’re dealing with the reality that it’s in place and we’re going to do everything that we can to make it work and have a positive contribution.”

In these conversations, Sarvis said SLDN has been recommending voices and organizations that work to end the ban on open service.

Another organization that has engaged with the working group is the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Nathaniel Frank, a Palm Center research fellow, said he’s had a “good relationship” with the Pentagon working group.

“They’ve reached out to us consistently and they’ve been responsive to us and I’m impressed by that,” he said. “The question will be, obviously, what are the results of the study and how are they expressed. So that proof will be in the pudding.”

Frank said the working group has asked the Palm Center to make recommendations on a litany of issues, including how to identify the costs to the military of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“That doesn’t mean just financial costs,” he said. “It means a litany of costs to morale, recruitment, cohesion, the impact on GLB service members, and Palm is coming out with a memo that I’m finalizing now that tries to convey all of those costs.”

Frank said the working group also asked about the pitfalls of using focus groups; how to measure the views of military families; and how to empirically assess the impact of lifting the ban on unit cohesion.

Another item that Frank said he was asked about was getting the views of gay service members for the study without putting them at risk for discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

This challenge has been repeatedly discussed in hearings on Capitol Hill and among those seeking repeal. In a statement released last week, Army Secretary John McHugh said the Pentagon is “likely” to employ a third party to solicit those views.

Sarvis said his understanding is the Pentagon is considering the use of a professional consultant or pollsters who have worked with the Pentagon before on manpower issues.

“In addition, I think they’re also looking to the RAND Corp. as part of that engagement,” he said.

But the decision on how the Defense Department will obtain these views is apparently not yet final. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to DC Agenda on April 9 that the working group is still considering the best way to incorporate gay service members into the study.

“Getting the views of gay and lesbian service members is very important to the working group,” she said. “We are still in the process of developing the proper instrument to obtain this information from gay and lesbian service members currently serving.”

Frank said he would take issue with any decision from the Pentagon to use a third party to solicit the views of gay service members because it would create a situation where service members generally would speak to one group, and gay, lesbian and bisexual service members would talk to another.

“Uniform personnel … would be consulting service members generally and then they would employ civilians or a third party only to speak to known gays and lesbians,” he said. “There’s an unfairness there in having the military speak directly to straight service members and not to gay service members.”

A better solution, Frank said, would be for the Pentagon to issue new regulations that would enable all service members to speak to the working group without fear of being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“The only consistent way to do it is to apply that uniformly to all people and not have separate standards, which is obviously the problem with the policy as it is,” he said.

Even with the openness between these groups and Pentagon officials, some repeal advocates say they have concerns about the working group’s direction.

Gates has repeatedly said the purpose of the group will be to examine how to implement an end to the ban should Congress repeal the law during the Senate hearing in February. But some repeal advocates say there’s a lack of clarity.

Nicholson said he has “big concerns” about the direction the group is heading, recalling testimony that Jeh Johnson, head of the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel and co-chair of the group, gave before the House in March in which the results of the working group would inform how Congress would proceed on the issue.

“And that, I think, was very dangerous and was a new twist,” he said. “If the mission of the working group is to simply come up with an effective implementation management plan for after repeal takes effect, then there really should be no reason why Congress should need to wait for the outcome of the working group.”

Frank also acknowledged “some confusion” about whether the purpose of the working group is to study how to lift the ban or whether to lift the ban.

“I think the reason for that confusion is while the group says it’s studying how to lift the ban, given the strategic intention of the president, whether the ban is actually lifted is in the hands of the Congress,” Frank said. “So if the group comes out with a study that exaggerates the risks to cohesion, or other risks associated with lifting the ban, obviously, that will make it easier for obstructionists in Congress to try to block repeal.”

Frank called on leaders handling the group to “make it more clear that they are assessing how best to lift the ban” and note that the only reason they’re evaluating repeal is to determine how to mitigate any harm.

“It’s important to say that years and years of research across the board make clear that that impact will be negligible or non-existent, and most of us already know that,” he said.

Nicholson was particularly critical of the White House and said he thinks it’s “extremely concerning” President Obama hasn’t come out and clarified the study’s purpose. Nicholson noted that he’s been asking for clarification from the White House for several weeks now and hasn’t received a response.

“I just felt like with the working group, they’ve been very much great in communicating with us, been very receptive, I do get the impression that they’re honestly considering the suggestions we give to them,” he said. “The White House, on the other hand, it’s felt like we’ve been throwing suggestions down a black hole.”

Nicholson said he doesn’t think that White House officials are seriously considering his organization’s input and that “they ignore a lot of us for weeks at a time sometimes.”

“Unfortunately, the White House is not only not listening to or considering our suggestions and communicating with us, but they haven’t given any indication that they intend to clarify the position of the working group or curtail the expansion of its scope,” he said.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, disputed the notion that the White House wasn’t engaged with the Servicemembers United.

“The White House is actively engaged with Servicemembers United and other groups on many issues of interest to the LGBT community, including ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” he said in a statement.

But Sarvis said he thinks the group will stay on track with its mission as long as it adheres to its mandate and stays focused on implementing open service.

“If they move away from their mandate, if they get into polling on if or whether, or seeking the personal opinions of service members, then, yes,” he said, “I think we have a problem.”

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

House Republicans propose steep cuts in federal AIDS budget

Advocacy groups say move would eliminate ‘Ending HIV Epidemic’ initiative

Published

47 mins ago

on

July 3, 2024

By

The Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative was launched during the administration of President Donald Trump.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies approved a spending bill on June 26 that calls for cutting at least $419 million from federal AIDS programs that AIDS activists say would have a devastating impact on efforts to greatly reduce the number of new HIV infections by 2030.

The subcommittee’s proposed bill, which includes billions of dollars in cuts in a wide range of other federal health, education, and human services related programs, is scheduled to be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee on July 10. Officials with AIDS advocacy groups say they are hopeful that the full committee, like last year, will refuse to approve the proposed cuts in the AIDS budget.

The proposed GOP cuts would eliminate $214 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s HIV prevention programs, $190 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, and $15 million from the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Minority HIV/AIDS Program.

Activists say the impact of those cuts would kill the federal government’s Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, which among other things, calls for reducing the number of new HIV infections in the U.S. by 75 percent by 2025 and by 90 percent by 2030. The activists point out that ironically the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative was launched during the administration of President Donald Trump.

 “Instead of providing new investments in ending HIV by increasing funding for testing, prevention programs, such as PrEP, and life-saving care and treatment, House Republicans are again choosing to go through a worthless exercise of cutting programs that the American people depend on and will never pass,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute.

“While we vigorously fight these cuts, we look forward to working with the entire Congress in a bipartisan fashion on spending bills that can actually become law,” Schmid said in a statement.

 Schmid noted that the bill also includes provisions known as “policy riders” that would take away rights and protections from women, such as access to birth control and abortion, and for minorities, including LGBTQ people.

According to a statement released by the office of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is the ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee, one of the policy riders would “block the Biden administration’s policies to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.’  The statement says another policy rider would “prevent policies or programs intended to promote diversity, equality, or inclusion.”

Most political observers believe the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate would also kill the GOP proposed policy riders and cuts in the AIDS budget if the full Republican-controlled House were to approve the budget bill passed by the appropriations subcommittee.

Rep, Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who serves as chair of the full House Appropriations Committee, released a statement on June 27 defending the  subcommittee’s bill and its proposed spending cuts. “The bill provides appropriate and fiscally responsible funding to ensure these departments can continue to perform their core missions while also acknowledging the fiscal realities facing our nation,” he said.

“Importantly, the bill pushes back on the Biden administration’s out-of-touch progressive policy agenda, preventing this White House from finalizing or implementing controversial rules or executive orders,” Cole said in his statement. “It also preserves long standing bipartisan policy provisions protecting the right to life.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings

Gay and lesbian couples began to marry in Bay State in 2004

Published

22 hours ago

on

July 2, 2024

By

(Bigstock photo)

Two decades after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, a new study reveals both significant progress and ongoing challenges for married LGBTQ couples in the U.S., with a growing sense of insecurity about the future of their rights.

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law surveyed 484 married same-sex couples from all 50 states and D.C. The study, released Monday, marks the 20th anniversary of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Researchers found that 93 percent of respondents cited love as a primary reason for marrying, with 75 percent also mentioning legal protections. Over 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of security, and 74.6 percent noted improved life satisfaction since marrying.

However, the study also highlighted persistent discrimination and growing concerns about the future. About 11 percent of couples who had a wedding reported facing prejudice during the planning process.

Alarmingly, nearly 80 percent of respondents expressed concern about the potential overturning of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This anxiety has been exacerbated by initiatives like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that some fear could roll back LGBTQ rights if implemented.

The possibility of a former President Donald Trump victory in the upcoming election has further intensified these concerns. Many respondents cited Trump’s previous U.S. Supreme Court appointments and his statements on LGBTQ issues as reasons for their apprehension. One participant stated, “The thought of another Trump presidency keeps me up at night. We’ve come so far, but it feels like our rights could be stripped away at any moment.”

The current political climate has 29 percent of respondents considering moving to another state, with 52.9 percent citing socio-political concerns as a primary reason. This reflects a growing sense of insecurity among LGBTQ couples about their rights and freedoms.

Brad Sears, founding executive director of the Williams Institute, noted, “The data clearly show that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on same-sex couples and their families. However, it also reveals ongoing challenges and serious concerns about the future of these rights in light of current political trends and the upcoming election.”

Christy Mallory, legal director at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study, added, “This research provides crucial insights into the lived experiences of same-sex couples two decades after marriage equality began in the U.S. The high level of concern about potential loss of rights underscores the continued importance of legal protections and public support for LGBTQ+ equality.”

The study found that 30 percent of surveyed couples have children, with 58.1 percent of those parents reporting that marriage provided more stability for their families. However, many of these families now worry about the security of their legal status in the face of potential policy changes and shifting political landscapes.

As the nation reflects on two decades of marriage equality, the study underscores both the transformative power of legal recognition and the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting LGBTQ+ rights. The findings highlight the complex reality faced by same-sex couples in America today: Celebrating hard-won progress while grappling with uncertainty about the future, particularly in light of upcoming political events and potential shifts in leadership.

Continue Reading

State Department

State Department hosts meeting on LGBTQ rights and foreign policy

Event took place before Pride Month reception

Published

4 days ago

on

June 29, 2024

By

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks at the State Department Pride Month event on June 27, 2024. (Screen capture via Forbes Breaking News YouTube)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday hosted a group of LGBTQ activists and politicians from around the world at the State Department.

The event — described as a “Convening on U.S. Foreign Policy: National Security, Inclusive Development, and the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons” — took place before the State Department’s annual Pride Month reception. Participants included:

• Jessica Stern, the special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights

• U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield

• U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai

• U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti

• Suzanne Goldberg, senior advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Civil Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

• Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya

• U.S. Agency for International Development Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator Jay Gilliam

• USAID Counselor Clinton D. White

• National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy and Human Rights Kelly Razzouk

• Assistant U.S. Secretary of Health Adm. Rachel Levine

• National Security Council Human Rights Director Jess Huber

• U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ilze Brandt Kehris

• Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S. Bergdís Ellertsdóttir

• Council for Global Equality Co-Executive Director Mark Bromley

• Outright International Senior Advisor for Global Intersex Rights Kimberly Zieselman

• Essy Adhiambo, executive director of the Institute for Equality and Non Discrimination in Kenya

• Pau González, co-chair of Hombres Trans Panamá and PFLAG-Panamá

“Forty-five years ago, thousands gathered in D.C. in what became the first national march for LGBTQI+, demanding their voices be heard,” said Thomas-Greenfield in a post to her X account that showed her speaking at the event. “We must continue to carry forward the spirit of these pioneers and fight for equal rights and dignity for all.”

President Joe Biden in 2021 signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of his administration’s overall foreign policy.

“LGBTQI+ rights are human rights,” said Blinken. “Our government has a responsibility to defend them, to promote them — here and everywhere.”

Blinken noted consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in 64 countries, with the death penalty in 11 of them.

He specifically highlighted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government’s “smearing scapegoating, stigmatizing LGBTQI+ persons — vilifying them with degrading labels, denying them equal rights, normalizing violence against them.” (Gay U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman this month marched in the annual Budapest Pride parade.)

Blinken noted Iraqi MPs earlier this year “passed legislation that punishes same-sex relations with up to 15 years in prison.” He also pointed out that Indonesian lawmakers approved a new criminal code banning extramarital sex.

“In a nation where same-sex couples cannot marry, these laws effectively make all same-sex conduct illegal and they undermine privacy for all Indonesians,” said Blinken.

“We’re defending and promoting LGBTQI+ rights around the world,” he said.

Blinken noted seven countries — Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Namibia, Singapore, the Cook Islands — have decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations over the last two years. He also highlighted Greece, Liechtenstein, and Thailand this year extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, and other countries are banning so-called “conversion therapy.”

“These achievements are possible because of incredibly courageous human rights defenders and government partners on the ground, but I believe America’s support is indispensable,” said Blinken. “When we engage — sometimes publicly, sometimes privately, sometimes both — when we share our own knowledge and experience, we can and we do achieve change.”

Blinken also announced the U.S. now considers sexual orientation and gender identity are part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that took effect in 1976.

“This is one of the key treaties committing nations to upholding universal rights,” he said. 

“In our regular reporting to the council on human rights, we will continue to include incidents of discrimination or abuse committed against LGBTQI+ persons, now with the clear framework of this well-supported interpretation,” added Blinken. “That will further empower our efforts.”

Blinken reiterated this point and the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad when he spoke at the State Department’s Pride Month event.

“Defending, promoting LGBTQI+ rights globally is the right thing to do, but beyond that, it’s the smart and necessary thing to do for our country, for our national security, for our well-being,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular