Connect with us

National

GOP in last ditch effort to block ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?

McCain denies dropping START support over gay ban

Published

on

Gay rights supporters continue to express optimism that the Senate is on its way to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as Republican senators have reportedly threatened toĀ withdraw support fromĀ a nuclear arms reduction treaty if a vote on the miltary’s gay ban proceeds as planned.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have said they would no longer support the START Treaty if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proceeds with a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.

ReidĀ on Thursday night filed cloture on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation as well as the DREAM Act. The vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could come as soon as Saturday if the Senate fails to invoke cloture first on the DREAM Act.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) predictedĀ the treaty’sĀ failure if the chamber moves onto what he called “partisan, political, issues, brought forth to basically accommodate activist groups around this country,” presumably referring to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and immigration.

“I’m hoping that those will be taken down or else I don’t think the future of the START treaty over the next several days is going to be successful, based on what I’m watching,” Corker said.

On the Senate floor, McCain seemed to distance himself from Corker and dispute the reporting that he and Graham were basing theirĀ support forĀ the START TreatyĀ on other measures that were coming to the floor.

“There continues to swirl allegations that there is going to be a vote for it or against it because of another piece of legislation or for other reasons — for other political reasons,” McCain said. “I reject that allegation.”

Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokesperson, said via e-mail to the Washington Blade, that the assertions that McCain is threatening to withdraw support from the START Treaty over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”Ā are “not true.”

“McCain will base his support on START on the merits of the Treaty and if his concerns regarding Missile Defense have been addressed,” Buchanan said.

Graham’s office didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request for comment on the issue.

An informed source said Congressional Quarterly is standing by its reporting in the article.

The START Treaty has been a priority for the White House in the lame duck session of Congress and support from McCain and Graham is seen as essential to reaching the 67-vote threshold necessary to ratify the treaty.

The reported ultimatum offered by Republicans senator could put the White House and Democratic leadership in the difficult position of having to choose between the two agenda items.

Still, the plan seems to be to continue with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as planned. Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokesperson, said Senate leadership intends to hold a vote Saturday as announced Thursday.

A White House spokesperson didn’t respond on short notice to a request for comment on whether the reported threats from Republicans would disrupt plans for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Optimism over ‘Don’t Ask’ vote

Amid theseĀ reported threats,Ā supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealĀ said prospects look good for the Senate voteĀ and pledged to keep up the pressure until Congress finishes the job.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the stand-alone bill, said he’s “very optimistic” the legislation will pass the Senate andĀ noted the bill currentlyĀ has more than 50 co-sponsors.

“But we know it ain’t over till it’s over and until all the votes are counted,” Lieberman said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, also predictedĀ the Senate willĀ vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”Ā on Saturday.

“I believe senators will do that,” Sarvis said. “I think we’re going to have a good weekend, and I just want to say we are delighted to be here after 17 years having this historic opporunity. I believe we’re on the brink of victory in the next day or two.”

To increase pressure on the Senate, gay troops who were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and who are affiliated withĀ SLDN are pledging to sit in the Senate gallery until the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal vote is taken.

Sarvis said these service members have come to the Senate to say they’re going to stay here untilĀ the SenateĀ repeals “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“So between now and adjournment, these service members and others like them — somewhere between two and 10 each hour — will be in the Senate galleries until the Senate acts,” Sarvis said.

Anthony Woods, an Army Iraq war veteran who was discharged in 2008, said during the news conference that implementation ofĀ open service in the U.S. military would have no impact on battle effectiveness.

“My soldiers didn’t care about anyone’s sexual orientation,” Woods said. “I was an armor officer, so we were on tanks in some of the toughest of parts of Iraq and it didn’t matter one bit what someone’s sexual orientation was.”

During the news conference, other lawmakers who have worked to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” railed against the gay ban as they called for an end to the law.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she thinks “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “unconstiutional” as she commended gay service members for serving under “difficult circumstances.”

“I want to thank you for your dedication and commitment despite such difficulties and despite such requirements that, I think, fundamentally, are not only unfair and unconstitutional, but in violation of who we are as Americans,” Gillibrand said.

Many gay rights advocates have been calling on President Obama to declare “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional so he could discontinue enforcement of the law.

A vote for final passage normally takes place 30 hours after the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, but Lieberman said a final vote could take place on the same day if cloture is invokedĀ and the Senate has unanimous consent to move forward ahead of time.

“I hope that we may reason together and decide toĀ yield back some time and perhaps get to finalĀ passage tomorrow before the end of the day.”

IfĀ all 57 senatorsĀ who voted in favor of the motion to proceed last week on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill vote to invoke cloture on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, only three more votes would be needed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to move forward with the bill.

Lieberman has said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who didn’t vote this month on the defense authorization bill, would vote in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” stand-alone bill.Ā Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have also indicated they would support the stand-alone bill, which should bring the vote tally up to 61.

Still, SLDN has included Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on its list of senators whom repeal supporters need to pressure before the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote. If Conrad votes “no” or takes a walk, his action could put the repeal bill right at the 60-vote threshold neeeded to go forward — or even below that threshold if there are any surprises.

During the news conference, Lieberman declined to elaborate on what he believed Conrad’s position was on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said he’d let the North Dakota senator speak for himself.

“I think you’ll have to talk to him,” Lieberman said. “Let’s say for now, I’m confident that got more than 60 votes.”

Conrad’s office didn’t respond on short notice to a request to comment onĀ how the senator wouldĀ vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Amendments not an issue for ‘Don’t Ask’ bill

Debate over amendments had previously been an issue with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was attached, which failed to pass in the Senate earlier this month, but that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the vote on the standalone repealĀ legislation.

Many RepublicanĀ senators said they voted “no” on the defense authorization bill because they didn’t feel the amendment process for the legislation was fair to the minority party.

For the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation,Ā Reid has “filled the tree” and is not permitting amendments on the bill to ensure that theĀ legislation the Senate approves will be identical to the measure passed earlier this week by the House.

Lachapelle said the cloture vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “an opportunity for senators to show where they stand on the issue.”

“Amendments at this point would only serve to kill the bill,” she said.

Even though senators who expressed support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have previously voted “no”Ā on the defense authorization bill based onĀ concerns on the amendment process, Lieberman said no senators who have been supportive said they would vote “no” based on amendment on the standalone bill.

In fact, Lieberman said two senators — Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska) — confirmed they would voteĀ in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” billĀ even with no amendments.”

“Although both of them wanted their to be a number of amendments allowed on the defense authorization bill, they said that was very different because it wasĀ a big bill, 900 pages — there ought to be a free and reasonable debate,” Lieberman said. “The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I think, at this point is four or five pages.”

Lieberman said both Collins and Murkowski indicated that opponents of repeal “will have full opportunity to speak against it, but we ought not to give people the opportunity to delay it further or try to pass an amemdment that effectively kill the bill.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

on

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.Ā 

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 ā€œthe storybooks were chosen to disrupt ā€˜cisnormativity’ and ā€˜either/or thinking’ among students.ā€ 

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

The petition goes further, saying the parents are ā€œnot 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 ā€˜to change their religious beliefs or conduct.ā€™ā€

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

ā€œInclusive education isn’t just a value — it’s a necessity,ā€ said Phillip Alexander Downie, co-chair of the Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities and CEO of Montgomery County Pride Family. ā€œThe 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.ā€

The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities says the rally is a ā€œnonpartisan community gathering rooted in education, advocacy, and solidarity.ā€ 

ā€œThe 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,ā€ 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.

Continue Reading

National

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

A4TE formed last year when two transgender rights groups merged

Published

on

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.

ā€œNow 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,ā€ said Heng-Lehtinen in a press release that Advocates for Trans Equality sent exclusively to the Washington Blade. ā€œWhen 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.ā€  

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.

ā€œWe thank Rodrigo for his years of dedicated leadership and service,ā€ said Marra. ā€œA4TE 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.ā€Ā 

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.ā€

ā€œI 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. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order

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

Published

on

(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 ā€œXā€ 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.

ā€œThis 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,ā€ said ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director Jessie Rossman after Kobick issued her ruling.

ā€œBy 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.ā€

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular