National
Gay sex remains a crime under military law
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal leaves sodomy ban unchanged
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, said his group’s top priority this year is to secure the certification by President Obama and military leaders for completing repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Much of the nation was riveted over the drama surrounding the congressional vote last month to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law barring gays from serving openly in the military.
But in a little-noticed development, Capitol Hill observers say Congress is in no mood to take a follow-up action recommended by Pentagon officials — the repeal of a longstanding military law that classifies consensual sodomy among both gay and straight service members as a crime.
Gay rights attorneys and experts in military law say the sodomy law provision known as Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice has been rarely enforced in recent years in cases where sexual activity has been consensual and “fraternization” between officers and lower ranking members has not be a factor.
And the experts say a 2004 decision known as U.S. v. Marcum by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services placed limits on the enforcement of Article 125 based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision one year earlier that declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional.
Yet because the military court did not overturn Article 125, its characterization of gay sex as criminal acts punishable by court martial will remain on the books until Congress repeals the statute, leaving in place what some activists say is an unfair stigma associated with gays and lesbians in the military.
Gay rights attorneys have said the Supreme Court could overturn the military sodomy law by affirming that the Lawrence v. Texas decision fully covers the military. But it could take years before a new military case reaches the high court.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which has led efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said his group’s top priority this year is to secure the certification by President Obama and military leaders for completing repeal.
The repeal law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in December doesn’t allow full repeal to take effect until the president, the Secretary of Defense and chair of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff determine troops and commanders are fully prepared for the change.
“So I would say no, that our top priority for this Congress is not the repeal of Article 125,” Sarvis told the Blade. “Do I think it should be repealed? Yes. Has SLDN been working over the last several years for repeal? Yes.”
Among those agreeing with Sarvis’ assessment is gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
“I’m skeptical and frankly at this point I don’t think it’s a good idea to press ahead with that one,” Frank said Tuesday, noting that gay rights opponents would likely use a debate on sodomy repeal in the military to push “hidden agendas.”
Sarvis summarized the views of other LGBT advocates when he said the Republican-controlled House would almost certainly refuse to even consider a bill to repeal Article 125. He said the need for pushing other LGBT-related issues in the military and other areas outweighs expending resources on Article 125.
Although Article 125 applies to gays and straights alike, gay rights advocates have said military authorities used it to target gay and lesbian service members in the past, especially in the years prior to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” If it remains on the books, some wonder whether a future president less supportive of LGBT rights might reinstate its full enforcement.
Longtime D.C. gay rights leader Frank Kameny, who assisted gay service members in the 1970s and 1980s, long before SLDN and other LGBT rights groups existed, said military investigators waged what he and other activists called “witch hunts” to identify and discharge gays on grounds that they violated Article 125.
Under Article 125, “any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense,” the article states.
Under the 2008 version of the military’s official manual for courts martial, unnatural carnal copulation under Article 125 is defined as a person taking into his or her “mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal…or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person.”
Sarvis and Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, an arm of the University of Southern California that studies issues related to gays in the military, each said they know of almost no cases in recent times where service members, gay or straight, have been prosecuted under Article 125 for engaging in consensual sex in private.
The two noted that nearly all Article 125 prosecutions in recent years have involved additional infractions and violations, such as allegations of rape or sexual harassment or of sexual activity between an officer and a lower-ranking enlisted person.
The latter category of cases, known as fraternization, is considered a strong breach of military rules because sexual relations between an officer and a subordinate are believed to harm the system of order and discipline deemed important in the military.
Bridget Wilson, a San Diego attorney in private practice who has represented gay and lesbian service members for more than 20 years, said she agrees with Sarvis and Belkin’s assessment about the infrequency of Article 125 enforcement in recent years for consensual sex.
But Wilson said the pressure that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has placed on gay and lesbian service members to conceal their sexual orientation during the 17 years it has been in effect has led to many cases where service members “fabricate” a non-consenting allegation to protect themselves from being thrown out of the service.
If a service member ensnared in an investigation over alleged acts of sodomy admitted to having consented to such acts, Wilson said, it was equivalent to an admission to being gay and grounds for an automatic discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“What I do see is false accusations of assaults,” she said in describing some cases faced by her clients. “You get a lot of, ‘I was so drunk last night I don’t remember a thing’ after he gets busted for having sex with another man.”
According to Wilson, some military prosecutors have interpreted impairment on the part of a service member due to alcohol consumption as a sign that the service member could not give true “consent” to a sexual act.
“So the problem with ‘I was so drunk that I don’t remember a thing’ is it could convert from [consensual] sodomy into forced sodomy with very serious consequences in the criminal courts,” she said.
With the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Wilson said she is hopeful that the perceived need by frightened service members to fabricate a non-consenting sex allegation to avoid being discharged from the service will become a thing of the past.
She said military authorities notoriously handled similar cases with straight couples engaging in alleged sodomy differently because there is no “straight” version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“They might find themselves punished by losing a stripe or losing leave time—that sort of thing,” Wilson said. “For my same-sex clients, before ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ goes away, they’re out. They’re gone. And they’re probably facing administrative separation with an other-than-honorable discharge.”
In its widely publicized Nov. 30 report, the Pentagon’s Joint Service’s Committee consisting of top military leaders — which recommended the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — also called on Congress to repeal Article 125.
The committee report points to both the U.S. v. Marcum decision, which limits the enforcement of Article 125, and the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional as they pertain to consenting adults in the privacy of the home.
“In light of these decisions, we recommend that Article 125 be repealed or amended to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy between adults, regardless of sexual orientation,” the report says.
“The other prohibitions considered punishable under Article 125, including forcible sodomy, sodomy with minors and sodomy that is demonstrated to be ‘service discrediting’ (i.e., in public or between a superior and subordinate), should remain on the books,” the report says.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said HRC favors a prompt repeal by Congress of Article 125. He said the group also disagrees with the military court decision upholding Article 125 under some circumstances and feels the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision, which overturned state sodomy laws, should also cover the military in its entirety.
“HRC expects that post-DADT repeal, Article 125 would only be used in circumstances involving non-consensual acts, so there should be no negative impact on gay and lesbian service members,” Cole-Schwartz said.
Former Army Lt. Dan Choi, who emerged as one of the nation’s most visible opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after being discharged under the statute, said he recognizes that Congress is unlikely to repeal Article 125 any time soon. But he criticized SLDN and other LGBT groups for not being more aggressive in pushing for its repeal at the present time.
“Leaders [should] do what is important and difficult and lead,” he said.
Bryan Thomas, a spokesperson for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Senate Democratic leaders were reviewing the Pentagon report’s call for Congress to repeal Article 125. He said a Senate repeal measure would most likely be introduced as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill, but he had no further details by press time on whether or when such a measure would be introduced.
“We expect the administration to submit a legislative proposal for repeal or revision of Article 125 of the UCMJ, and such a proposal would certainly be carefully considered by the committee,” Thomas said.
Spokespersons for Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Republican leaders in the Senate could not be immediately reached.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections5 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach5 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini5 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
National5 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
