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
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government4 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
European Union2 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
News4 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
-
Delaware3 days ago
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
