National

Supporters bullish about repealing ‘Don’t Ask’

But GOP aide warns ‘minefields’ await

Published

14 years ago

December 14, 2010

Capitol Hill observers are optimistic that sufficient support now exists to pass standalone “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation amid questions about when the Senate will take on the legislation.

A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity, said the chances of passing the new standalone repeal legislation are “looking better and better each day.”

“Based on what I’m hearing, I think there is a very keen interest by Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House to make a standalone bill a big priority,” the aide said. “I think that they are taking steps to ensure that chances are good for passage.”

Winnie Stachelberg, vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, also said she believes there’s a chance the bill will pass before Congress is out of session.

“Having a chance is all that you need,” she said. “And you need the pieces to fall into place and the commitment of those on the Hill and the White House to get it done. People really need to lean into this to get it done.”

But a Senate Republican aide, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, was more cautious and said passage depends “on so many variables.”

“I think if the omnibus, the continuing resolution, all that stuff stretches past Thursday night, Friday, then it gets real difficult,” the aide said. “Those things are already set in motion. It could happen, but there’s just a lot of minefields.”

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced the new repeal legislation last week after the Senate on Thursday failed to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to move major defense budget legislation to the floor containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

Lieberman’s legislation is identical to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provision in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. Even if the standalone is signed into law, repeal wouldn’t take effect until the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready to implement open service.

Support for the legislation in the Senate has grown rapidly as Lieberman — and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an original co-sponsor for the bill — have worked to gather co-sponsors for the legislation. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the measure as of Monday had 40 co-sponsors.

Joe Solmonese, president of HRC, said the growing number of co-sponsors for the legislation “adds momentum” to the effort to legislatively repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.

“Now the question is whether the Senate and House will take up this measure quickly and get it to the president’s desk,” Solmonese said. “There should be no excuses for inaction.”

When the bill comes to the floor, eyes will be on senators who say they support repeal, but didn’t vote in favor of bringing the defense legislation to the floor last week, such as Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska).

Last week, many Republicans said they were voting “no” because they didn’t believe the amendment process was fair enough for Republicans. The defense authorization bill typically takes several days of debate and both parties offer amendments to the legislation.

This year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had proposed 10 Republican amendments and 5 Democratic amendments as part of the agreement to proceed to the legislation.

But the Republican aide noted that passing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as standalone legislation as opposed as passing it as part of the defense authorization bill eliminates arguments to vote “no” on procedural grounds.

“You take away everything that people had problems with — procedure, tax cuts and everything else,” the aide said. “It’s a ‘Hail Mary’ pass, but could it work? Yes.”

Stachelberg also said the standalone bill would have a better chance because Republicans wouldn’t be able to say they were being offered an unfair deal for amendments on the larger defense bill.

“We can argue they got that or not with the deal that was offered, but they didn’t feel like they got that,” Stachelberg said. “The process arguments with respect to repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ fall away when you strip out the context of the defense authorization bill.”

As attention remains focused on whether sufficient support exists in the Senate to pass the bill, action is underway in the House to act first to make repeal efforts less complicated in the upper chamber.

On Tuesday, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House. Drew Hammill, spokesperson for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said a vote on the bill will take place on Wednesday.

The plan was to have a vote in the House and to send the legislation to the Senate as a “privileged” bill, which would allow the Senate to take up the measure without having a cloture vote on the motion to proceed.

The maneuver would skip the 60 votes needed for the motion to proceed with the legislation and shave off the 30 hours of time that is normally needed after cloture is filed to vote on whether to end debate.

Still, even with this plan, the Senate would need 60 votes to proceed to final passage of the legislation.

But the timing for when the Senate would bring up the vote after the House acts remains in question.

Asked if he could offer an estimate for when the Senate would take up repeal legislation, Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, replied, “No, my friend, nobody knows that.”

Sources have said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to bring the legislation to the floor before year’s end, but when the bill would come up amid other priorities — such as the START Treaty, a nuclear arms reduction agreement — remains in question.

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said Monday there’s “nothing to announce yet” on when the bill would come to the floor and said Senate leadership is “still working on next steps for everything we have left to do.”

Some sources say the new repeal legislation could come to the floor as early as this week after the Senate resolves the extension the Bush-era tax cuts, but others say “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would come next week to the floor after additional measures are addressed.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he believes the START Treaty would come up “soon after” the Senate has finished work on the tax extension plan.

“Obviously it’s unclear yet the number of hours of debate after the procedural vote today before the Senate takes up for final passage of the tax agreement,” he said. “But I think fairly soon after, the Senate will move to the debate on START ratification.”

Still, Gibbs said he thinks “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is part of the “basket of issues” that the Senate will take up before adjourning for the year.

“I think there’s no doubt that based on the votes last week, it’s clear that a majority of the Senate supports the President’s position of doing away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — repealing that,” Gibbs said. “Certainly our hope is that the Senate will take this up again and it will see this done by the time the year ends.”

The Senate Democratic aide said another attempt to bring up the defense authorization bill — this time with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language and other provisions stripped — could come up first for a vote before the standalone repeal bill.

“My strong guess is that the defense bill will have ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and some other sensitive provisions stricken out so that the defense bill could pass fairly easily, and then we could move on to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ which I think has 60 votes,” the aide said.

Up Next

Amos: Gays in military could ‘cost Marines’ lives’

Don't Miss

U.S. takes anti-bullying message to Italy

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to hear Md. religious freedom case on Tuesday

Advocacy groups to rally outside during Mahmoud v. Taylor oral arguments

Published

19 hours ago

April 21, 2025

Jaylon Curry-Hagler

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Activists on Tuesday will hold a rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether schools are violating parents’ religious freedom by not letting them opt their children out of learning about LGBTQ-specific topics.

Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case out of Montgomery County about parents who wish to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons in public schools for religious reasons.

Montgomery County Public Schools, after initially allowing parents to opt their children out, changed the policy in March 2023.

The plaintiffs — Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, and other parents — argue “the storybooks were chosen to disrupt ‘cisnormativity’ and ‘either/or thinking’ among students.”

“The board’s own principals objected that the curriculum was ‘not appropriate for the intended age group,’ presented gender ideology as ‘fact,’ ‘sham[ed]’ students with contrary opinions, and was ‘dismissive of religious beliefs,’” according to the petition on the Supreme Court’s website.

The petition goes further, saying the parents are “not challenging the curriculum, but arguing that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parents’ religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause. Construing Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 4th Circuit found no free-exercise burden because no one was forced ‘to change their religious beliefs or conduct.’”

The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities, an organization that aims to bring together “advocates, educators, families, and organizations committed to inclusive, affirming, fact and science-based education,” will participate in the “Rally for Inclusive Education” rally outside the Supreme Court alongside Live In Your Truth and the Montgomery County Pride Family.

“Inclusive education isn’t just a value — it’s a necessity,” said Phillip Alexander Downie, co-chair of the Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities and CEO of Montgomery County Pride Family. “The right of every child to learn in an environment where they see themselves reflected, affirmed, and respected is under attack. This rally is our moment to protect that right — and ensure future generations inherit classrooms rooted in truth, equity, equality, and justice.”

The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities says the rally is a “nonpartisan community gathering rooted in education, advocacy, and solidarity.”

“The focus of this event is to uplift the importance of inclusive learning environments, celebrate the power of diversity in our schools, and amplify the voices of those most impacted by exclusionary practices and rhetoric,” it said.

The rally will feature speakers from across the country, including students, educators, civil rights leaders, and authors who will give their own testimonies as to why it is important to have inclusivity in primary education. Trans Maryland, the National Women’s Law Center, MoCoPride Center, and Authors Against Book Bans are among the LGBTQ groups sponsoring the event.

National

EXCLUSIVE: Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen to step down from Advocates for Trans Equality

A4TE formed last year when two transgender rights groups merged

Published

22 hours ago

April 21, 2025

Staff reports

Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen (Photo courtesy of Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen)

Advocates for Trans Equality Executive Director Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen on Monday announced he will step down on April 30.

The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Center for Transgender Equality formed Advocates for Trans Equality last year when they merged. Heng-Lehtinen was previously NCTE’s executive director.

“Now that we’ve made it through the merger, and A4TE is established as a new, prominent institution fighting hard for trans equality, it’s time for me to take my next step,” said Heng-Lehtinen in a press release that Advocates for Trans Equality sent exclusively to the Washington Blade. “When Andy (Hong Marra) and I began envisioning the merger, I committed to seeing it through. I’m proud that now our vision has been realized. A4TE has not just launched, but is fully up and running, delivering results for trans people around the country. With A4TE gaining momentum, I’m now ready to move on to my next chapter.”

Heng-Lehtinen, whose mother is former Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in the press release stressed he “will be focusing on changing hearts and minds.”

“With my background in persuasion and messaging, it’s where I can make the biggest difference, and what I feel called to return to in this era of anti-trans backlash,” said Heng-Lehtinen. “I will still be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone (in) the trans movement, simply in a different capacity.”

Marra, who is Advocates for Trans Equality’s CEO, praised Heng-Lehtinen and said the organization’s work will continue.

“We thank Rodrigo for his years of dedicated leadership and service,” said Marra. “A4TE will continue to deliver on our promise to advocate for the lives of trans people who need us now more than ever. We remain undaunted by our endeavor to ensure trans people and our families are no less than free and equal and treated with dignity and respect.”

Louisiana Trans Advocates Executive Director Peyton Rose Michelle also praised Heng-Lehtinen.

“Rodrigo has been a steady hand and a bright light in this work,” she said. “He’s someone who shows up with integrity, kindness, and a deep commitment to meeting this political moment with courage. I’ve always felt deeply supported and heard by him, which is something I value deeply.”

“I fully support him as he steps into this new chapter, and I know his clarity of vision and heart-forward leadership will keep shifting this landscape back toward justice for trans people, and therefore, all people,” added Michelle.

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order

State Department can no longer issue travel documents with ‘X’ gender markers

Published

3 days ago

April 19, 2025

Michael K. Lavers

(Bigstock photo)

A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of a group of transgender and nonbinary people who have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

The Associated Press notes U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston issued a preliminary injunction against the directive. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, in a press release notes Kobick concluded Trump’s executive order “is likely unconstitutional and in violation of the law.”

“The preliminary injunction requires the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary people to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity while the lawsuit proceeds,” notes the ACLU. “Though today’s court order applies only to six of the plaintiffs in the case, the plaintiffs plan to quickly file a motion asking the court to certify a class of people affected by the State Department policy and to extend the preliminary injunction to that entire class.”

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022. Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January.

Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

“This ruling affirms the inherent dignity of our clients, acknowledging the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration’s passport policy would have on their ability to travel for work, school, and family,” said ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director Jessie Rossman after Kobick issued her ruling.

“By forcing people to carry documents that directly contradict their identities, the Trump administration is attacking the very foundations of our right to privacy and the freedom to be ourselves,” added Rossman. “We will continue to fight to rescind this unlawful policy for everyone so that no one is placed in this untenable and unsafe position.”