National
McCain: More hearings before ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Senator says study should assess repeal’s impact on battle effectiveness
U.S. Sen John McCain (R-Ariz) on Sunday said congressional hearings are necessary on an upcoming Pentagon report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before Congress moves forward to lift the military’s gay ban.
The Arizona senator also blasted the study — which reportedly will be favorable to open service — for focusing on how to implement an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as opposed to the impact repeal will have on battle effectiveness.
During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” McCain said he doesn’t think lawmakers should repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before adjourning for the year and maintained hearings should come first.
Asked by host David Gregory whether it’s fair to stay to ban won’t be lifted in lame duck, McCain replied, “I don’t think it should be because I think once the study comes out in the beginning of December, we should at least have a chance to review it and maybe have hearings on it.”
With the 2010 election bringing a Republican takeover of the U.S. House and a reduced Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate, waiting for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until next year is expected to make the task significantly more difficult — if not unattainable.
The Arizona senator reiterated that the scope of the Pentagon working group — developing a plan to implement repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — isn’t what’s necessary to examine the issue properly.
“I wanted a study to determine the effects of the repeal on battle effectiveness and morale,” McCain said. “What this study is designed to do is to find out how the repeal could be implemented. Those are two very different aspects of this issue.”
McCain emphasized that the four military service chiefs have expressed reservations about lifting the military’s gay ban before a comprehensive study is complete. Last week, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos said now isn’t the time for Congress to enact repeal.
“I respect and admire these four service chiefs who have expressed either outright opposition or deep reservation about the repeal,” McCain said. “They’re the ones who are in charge.”
During a recent trip to Afghanistan, McCain said an Army master sergeant expressed concerns to him about lifting the military’s gay ban.
“I was in an outpost in Kandahar,” McCain said. “An Army master sergeant — 19 years in, fifth deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan — says to me, ‘Sen. McCain we live eat, sleep and fight together in close proximity. I’m concerned about the repeal. I’d like to know more about it.’ That’s the view that I’ve got from chief petty officers and sergeants all over Afghanistan.”
Media reports have said the Pentagon report will reveal that more than 70 percent of U.S. service members don’t care if gays serve openly in the armed forces, but McCain dismissed this reporting.
“I have not seen that study, and this study was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not,” McCain said.
In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, lambasted McCain for the senator’s positions “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and the Pentagon study.
“Obviously the senator doesn’t like the preliminary findings of the Pentagon’s [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] survey, which found a clear majority of U.S. service members are okay serving with their gay and lesbian comrades,” Solmonese said. “The senator has known all along the study developed by the Pentagon Working Group was looking at how to repeal [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] — not whether to do so.”
Solmonese noted that McCain previously said he wanted to hear from military leadership on the issue, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said he favors open service.
Then the senator said he wanted to hear from rank-and-file troops, and, according to media reports on the Pentagon report, they say they’re OK with gays serving openly as well.
“The truth is McCain is increasingly alone in his irrational opposition to open service,” Solmonese said. “Sixty-four percent of Republicans disagree with McCain and favor lifting the ban. No matter the evidence, McCain will use whatever tactics at his disposal to not only stop repeal from moving forward, but will hold hostage the most critical military defense bill to do so.”
Also during McCain’s “Meet the Press” appearance, the positions on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” among members of the senator’s own family also came up.
Last week, Cindy McCain, the senator’s wife, appeared in a NOH8 campaign ad and denounced how current laws mean gays “can’t serve our country openly.” In a later Twitter posting, she clarified she supports the NOH8 campaign but also stands by her husband’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In response, McCain maintained his position that a study on the effects of repeal on battle effectiveness and repeal is necessary before moving forward.
“By the way, I respect the First Amendment rights of every member of my family,” McCain added.
Watch a video of McCain’s remarks here:
The transcript of the exchange between Gregory and McCain follows:
Gregory: Are you going to stand in the way — you personally — in the way of this ban being lifted?
McCain: I will stand that I want a thorough and complete study of the effect on morale and battle effectiveness of the United States military. I will listen — as I’ve said for years — to our military leaders and not a study that is leaked as we know…
Gregory: …that said seven in ten members of the military think it would be just fine to have it lifted.
McCain: I have not seen that study, and this study was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not.
But very importantly, we have people like the commandant of the Marine Corps, the three other — all four service chiefs are saying we need a thorough and complete study of the effects — not how to implement a repeal — but the effects on morale and battle effectiveness. That’s what I want, and once we get this study, we need to have hearings and we need to examine it, and we need to look at whether it’s the kind of study that we wanted.
It isn’t in my view because I wanted a study to determine the effects of the repeal on battle effectiveness and morale. What this study is designed to do is to find out how the repeal could be implemented. Those are two very different aspects of this issue.
Gregory: In a lot of households, this is a subject of debate, including your own apparently. Your wife, Cindy McCain, has put up an ad, a public service announcement with NOH8, a group that promotes lesbian, gay and transgender rights, and this is portion of it.
[Plays clip with Cindy McCain saying gays “can’t serve our country openly.”]
Gregory: …referring to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She did clarify this on her Twitter page. You’re both so active on Twitter. She said this. She said, “I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be part of it. But I stand by my husband’s stance on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'”
McCain: …which is, a complete and thorough study and review of the effect on battle readiness and morale, and by the way, I respect the First Amendment rights of every member of my family.
Gregory: But, you know, what’s interesting about this, I mean, a debate in family, is there is kind of — you talk about waiting for the study — there is an appeal to honor, I mean, to your honor. You have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying, ‘Look, it’s just not right to have people lying about who they are just to be able to protect fellow citizens.”
McCain: You have the commandant of the Marine Corps who says — whose people he’s directly responsible for — is saying this could hurt our ability to win.
Gregory: Do you believe that?
McCain: I’m paying attention to the commandant of the Marine Corps. I’m paying attention to the chief of staff of the Air Force.
Gregory: You’re so close to the military, senator. You know these people. You know the issue. Do you have a sense of it in your gut about what should happen?
McCain: I have a sense that I respect and admire these four service chiefs who have expressed either outright opposition or deep reservation about the repeal. They’re the ones who are in charge. Now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I agree, the president and the secretary of defense, have all come out for repeal.
But I really would — I was in an outpost in Kandahar. An Army master sergeant — 19 years in, fifth deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan — says to me, “Sen. McCain we live eat, sleep and fight together in close proximity. I’m concerned about the repeal. I’d like to know more about it.”
That’s the view that I’ve got from chief petty officers and sergeants all over Afghanistan.
Gregory: The ban’s not going to be lifted in the lame duck session. Is that fair to say?
McCain: I think that we should at least — I don’t think it should be because I think once the study comes out in the beginning of December, we should at least have a chance to review it and maybe have hearings on it.
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.”
National
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence to take place April 10
Campaign began as student-led protests against anti-LGBTQ bullying, discrimination
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence will take place on April 10.
The annual Day of Silence began as a student-led protest in response to bullying and discrimination that LGBTQ students face. It is now a national campaign for the LGBTQ community and their allies to come together for LGBTQ youth.
It takes place annually and has multiple ways for supporters to get involved in the movement.
Glisten, originally GLSEN, champions LGBTQ issues in schools, grades K-12. Glisten’s mission is to create more inclusive and accepting environments for LGBTQ students through curriculum, supportive measures, education campaigns, and engagement, such as the Day of Silence.
There are three main ways for the community to get involved in the Day of Silence.
Glisten has a Day of Silence frame, a series of pictures used as profile photos across social media that feature individuals holding signs. The signs allow for personalization, by providing a space to put the individual’s name, followed by filling in the prompt “ … and I am ENDING the silence by…”
Participants are encouraged to post the photo on social media and use it as a profile picture. The templates can be found on Google Drive through this link.
Using #DayOfSilence and #NSCS, as well as tagging Glisten’s official Page @glistencommunity, is another way to participate in the Day of Silence.
Glisten also encourages participants to tag creators, friends, family and use a call to action in their caption, to call attention to the facts and stories behind the Day of Silence.
“Today’s administration in the U.S. wants us to stay silent, submit to their biased and hurtful conformity, and stop fighting for our right to be authentically ourselves,” said Glisten CEO Melanie Willingham-Jaggers. “We urge supporters to use their social platforms and check in with local chapters to be boots on the ground to help LGBTQ+ students feel seen, heard, supported, and less alone. By participating in the ‘Day of Silence,’ you are showing solidarity with young people as they navigate identity, safety, and belonging. Our voices matter.”
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.

