National
Boehner suggests House marriage hearing is ‘legitimate’
Gallagher among scheduled witnesses; HRC says GOP ‘obsessed’ with discrimination
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested on Thursday that an upcoming House hearing on “defending marriage” is a “legitimate” use of U.S. government funds as the subcommittee confirmed that witnesses who are set to testify include anti-gay activists.
During a news conference, Boehner made the remarks in response to a question from the Washington Blade on whether he supports the planned hearing, which is set to take place Friday before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, and if he thinks the event is an appropriate use of federal resources.
“There are a lot of committees, a lot of hearings,” Boehner said. “As I made it clear from the beginning of this year, the committee process is important to this institution, and I think addressing any question — serious question — in American society is legitimate.”
Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said in response to Boehner’s remarks that the upcoming hearing will “no doubt showcase the [Republican] majority’s obsession with ensuring continued discrimination against same-sex couples.”
“They’re welcome to think that’s a legitimate way to spend their time but the vast majority of Americans will be scratching their heads wondering why House Republicans have held a third hearing in as many weeks to demonize LGBT people,” Cole-Schwartz said.
Cole-Schwartz was counting two earlier hearings that House committees held to oversee implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as anti-gay hearings and the upcoming testimony on “defending marriage” as the third anti-gay hearing this year.
Also on Thursday, the committee made public the names of the three witnesses who were set to testify, which include two witnesses with a history of anti-gay views. The background of the scheduled anti-gay witnesses lends credence to speculation that the hearing — which is set to begin at 10 am in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building — will be hostile to same-sex marriage.
Capitol Hill observers say the expect the hearing to be critical of President Obama’s announced decision on Feb. 23 to drop defense of the Defense of Marriage Act against litigation in court. Boehner has since directed the House general counsel to take up defense of the anti-gay law.
The most high-profile scheduled witness is Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage, who has previously testified before Congress against same-sex marriage and has a history of anti-gay activism. She didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment for this article.
Another expert who’s scheduled to speak is Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and director of center’s program on the constitution, the courts, and the culture. A former law clerk to U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and a high-ranking legal adviser in the Justice Department for former President George W. Bush, Whelan has written several anti-gay tracts as a scholar at the center.
Whelan, who didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request to discuss his testimony, has been critical of the Obama administration for what he said is not vigorously defending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” against litigation in court and — in essay titled “The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge” — found fault with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision last year that determining that Proposition 8 in California was unconstitutional.
“Walker’s course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case,” Whelan wrote. “That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.”
But another scheduled witnesses at the hearing, Carlos Ball, a gay law professor at Rutgers Law School, told the Blade he plans to argue in his testimony that Obama rightfully determined that DOMA is unconstitutional and that the president shouldn’t defend the law in court.
“It is unusual for an administration to decide not to defend the constitutionality of the statute, but it is by no means unprecedented,” Ball said. “The first President Bush did it; President George W. Bush did it as well. In my view, any administration has a constitutional obligation to make an independent judgment on the constitutionality of certain statutes, especially when there is no clear law on whether the statutes are constitutional or not.”
Additionally, Ball said he plans to testify that DOMA is a “constitutionally indefensible statute” because the states have traditionally enjoyed the prerogative of regulating marriage.
“What the plaintiffs in these DOMA lawsuits are saying is not that they have a federal constitutional right to marry — that’s not the issue,” Ball said. “These couples are already married under the laws of their states. What that their arguing is that the federal government should not discriminate against their marriages when it comes to federal governments. The administration has concluded that it’s unconstitutional to treat differently, and I think they’re absolutely correct.”
Ball is the author of numerous pro-LGBT scholarly works, including “The Right to be Parents: How LGBT Mothers and Fathers Have Revolutionized Family Law,” “From the Closet to the Courtroom: Five LGBT Rights Cases That Have Changed Our Nation” and “The Morality of Gay Rights: An Exploration in Political Philosophy.”
Even the Republicans who are members of the subcommittee have a history of anti-gay views. In an interview with Think Progress, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, has said Obama and Holder could impeached over the decision and that he would favor defunding the Justice Department if it doesn’t defend DOMA.
Other subcommittee members include Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who has initiated to congressional effort to eliminate same-sex marriage in D.C., and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has repeatedly made anti-gay remarks said gays wouldn’t face discrimination if they didn’t wear their “sexuality on their sleeve.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat of the subcommittee, said he hasn’t had any conversations with Franks on what he wants to accomplish with the hearing, but plans to attend and expects hostility against the Obama administration.
“This is a hearing really on the administration’s decision not to defend DOMA in court,” Nadler said. “I think [Franks is] trying to dramatize his position — that the administration is doing a terrible thing by not defending the law.”
Nadler said proponents of Obama’s decision are prepared to make the point that Obama rightly dropped defense of DOMA because the statute targets married same-sex couples for discrimination.
“I think we’re going to make the point that although it’s unusual, it’s not unprecedented,” Nadler said. “In fact, it’s required when the administration’s legal people decide — as they have in this case on good legal grounds — that the law is indefensible constitutionally.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
Claudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
