National
Choi, others begin to re-enlist
Court denies stay of injunction; Pentagon halts enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask’
The struggle to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” received renewed national attention this week as the Pentagon announced it would halt enforcement of the policy and a California federal court rejected the Obama administration’s request for a stay of the injunction against the law.
The Pentagon announced that it would discontinue enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last week issued an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the law that confirmed her September ruling striking down the statute.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department sought an emergency stay with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision from the court wasn’t handed down by Blade deadline. Check the Blade’s website for updates on the injunction.
Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokesperson, said the Pentagon would adhere to the court injunction and stop discharges of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
“The Department of Defense will of course obey the law,” she said. “The Department will abide by the terms of the court’s order, effective as of the time and date of the injunction, unless and until the injunction is stayed or vacated.”
Smith said on Oct. 15, the Pentagon issued guidance to military recruiters saying they could no longer dismiss openly gay people who are interested in joining the U.S. armed forces.
“Recruiters are reminded to set the applicants’ expectations by informing them that a reversal in the court’s decision of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law/policy may occur,” she said.
News that the Pentagon is no longer enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prompted Dan Choi, a discharged former Army officer who gained notoriety by chaining himself to the White House gates in protest over the policy, to seek re-enlistment in the U.S. armed forces.
On Tuesday, Choi reportedly re-enlisted in the Army at a recruiting station in Times Square in New York City. He reportedly said Tuesday recruiters were processing his request and that he initially sought to re-enlist as a Marine, but was told he was too old to enter the service.
Other out gays had sought to re-enlist this week in other places throughout the country. Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, president of the San Diego chapter of Log Cabin Republicans, reportedly tried to re-enlist with the Marines, but was told that prior-service quotas were full right now.
Even with the injunction in place, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is warning gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to maintain keeping their sexual orientation a secret if they serve in the U.S. armed forces.
In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, urged caution among service members because he said the injunction could be reversed “very soon.”
“During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up,” Sarvis said. “A higher court is likely to issue a hold on the injunction by Judge Phillips very soon. The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon.”
As the Pentagon has discontinued enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the Obama administration has sought to reverse the injunction. The Justice Department last week sought a stay in Phillips’ decision to bar enforcement of the law while appealing her ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
But Phillips denied the request in a notice issued Tuesday. The judge explains that she denied a stay of the injunction because the U.S. government has provided inadequate reasons for her to take such action.
“Having considered the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Application, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, the Court DENIES the Application for the following reasons as well as those set forth on the record at the hearing,” she writes.
Many legal experts had expected that Phillips would deny the stay. On Monday, she tentatively denied the stay as she heard arguments from attorneys.
In the Tuesday notice, Phillips said she denied the stay because, among other reasons, the injunction wouldn’t impede the U.S. military’s stated goals of having to amend policies and develop education and training programs to adjust to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley issued a memo last week outlining this concern.
“Though the Stanley Declaration identifies some general categories of regulations – housing, benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity, anti-harassment, standards of conduct, and rights and obligations of the chaplain corps – it fails to identify the specific policies and regulations or why they must be changed in light of the Court’s injunction,” Phillips writes.
Phillips also denies that a stay on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” injunction would serve the public interest because she says evidence at trial demonstrated the law “harms military readiness and unit cohesion, and irreparably injures service members by violating their fundamental rights.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, which filed the lawsuit in 2004, said Phillips is “right to stand with service members by rejecting President Obama’s request to continue this discriminatory policy.”
“It is vital that as a nation we uphold the fundamental constitutional rights of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen,” Cooper said. ”With recruiters accepting gay and lesbian applicants and a week having passed without incident, it is clear that our military is well-equipped to adapt to open service, and eager to get on with the work of defending our freedom.”
Cooper criticized Obama for previously saying at a town hall that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would end on his watch while defending the statute in court.
“As commander in chief, the president should drop his defense of a policy which he knows undermines military readiness and threatens national security,” Cooper said.
During a news conference on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized the president’s commitment to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” through legislative means while saying the Justice Department is monitoring what’s happening in the courts.
“The president believes that the policy will end under his watch precisely because in the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate is a provision that would repeal what the president believes is unjust, what the president believes is discriminatory,” Gibbs said. ”It’s passed the House. The president will push for defense authorization to be passed containing that provision when the Senate comes back for the lame duck.”
But whether the Senate would be able to push through “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after Election Day is questionable at best — especially considering Democrats are poised take huge losses and will likely lose control of the U.S. House.
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said in a statement that Republican support would be needed to move forward with major defense budget legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language is attached.
“In light of the recent court decision, Republicans will hopefully drop their opposition to [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] and allow us to pass the [defense] authorization in the lame duck,” Manley said.
The Republican who successfully led a filibuster that derailed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation in the Senate last month pledged on Sunday to continue his opposition after Election Day.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said during a TV interview with the NBC affiliate in Phoenix, Ariz., that he would attempt to block the legislation if a motion to bring the measure to the Senate floor came up during the lame duck.
“I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness,” he said.
A Pentagon working group is set to deliver a report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the way forward with implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal by Dec. 1, although McCain has previously suggested the scope of the study is too limited.
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.”
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
