Connect with us

National

Buttigieg, Warren unveil comprehensive plans for LGBT rights

2020 hopeful name Marsha P. Johnson as LGBT pioneer

Published

on

LGBT issues, gay news, Washington Blade

From left, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-South Bend, Ind.) have unveiled plans for LGBT rights (Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)

On the same day they’re set to join a presidential candidate forum on LGBT issues, two Democratic hopefuls — Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg — have unveiled comprehensive plans for LGBT rights in their potential administrations.

Both Warren and Buttigieg articulate wide-ranging plans for assisting the LGBT community, such as support for the Equality Act, ending the transgender military ban and allowing a third gender marker option on federal IDs for non-binary people.

“I will fight to pass the Equality Act to explicitly guarantee that no LGBTQ+ person in America is discriminated against for who they are or who they love,” Warren writes. “Today, federal law still does not expressly prohibit firing a transgender person because of their gender identity, evicting a bisexual person because their same-sex partner moves in or deliberately misgendering a non-binary student in the classroom. There should be absolutely no question that LGBTQ+ Americans have equal rights under law.”

Both Warren and Buttigieg, remarkably, name Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, transgender women of color who participated in the 1969 Stonewall riots, as pioneers in the LGBT movement.

“For LGBTQ+ people, like for other marginalized groups, the political has always been extremely personal,” Buttigieg writes. “This is why our policy is inspired by LGBTQ+ people’s stories: By the war that breaks out in the heart of a young person when they realize that a basic fact about them makes them more likely to be feared, and the immense joy that comes with finally knowing with certainty that you belong.”

But there’s some differences in the plans around the edges. For example, Warren pledges both to reverse the transgender military ban and beef up enforcement of federal non-discrimination law on Day One of her administration, but Buttigieg doesn’t say that in so many words. Buttigieg lays out a plan to end the HIV epidemic by 2030, but Warren offers no such timeline.

Notably, Warren explicitly names the trio of cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard just this week that will determine whether anti-LGBT discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, therefore prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Buttigieg, however, doesn’t bring up the cases or Title VII whatsoever.

Warren and Buttigieg, who offer starkly different plans on the campaign trail for health care reform, promote their approaches as ways to ensure LGBT people have access to medical care. Warren pledges a complete overhaul with Medicare for All, but Buttigieg has a Medicare for All Who Want It that allows individuals to keep their private health care plans.

Both candidates also have differing approaches in style. For starters, Buttigieg, who’s gay, is able to invoke his membership of the LGBT community in touting his plan.

“Twenty years ago, an awkward teenager at St. Joe High School in South Bend, Indiana, who didn’t know a single out LGBTQ+ student there, never would have imagined how far we would come as a country,” Buttigieg writes. “But what does our country look like to a teenager in 2019, just starting to realize who they are? What future do they see for themselves?”

Buttigieg’s plan also incorporates in his plan the voices of other LGBT people beside himself, such as former Defense Department spokesperson Doug Wilson.

Taking a line from her opening remarks at the recent Iowa LGBT forum hosted by GLAAD, Warren enumerates the names of each of the 18 transgender people killed this alone, almost of whom are black transgender women.

“The data in this area are so unreliable that experts believe this number underestimates the depth of the crisis,” Warren writes. “It is time for a president to say their names and honor their memory by fighting every day for a country where trans women of color can thrive free from discrimination.”

The candidates both singularly blame President Trump for anti-LGBT policies, pledging to reverse his actions once they take the White House.

Buttigieg takes note of several Trump initiatives, then criticizes him for reportedly joking Vice President Mike Pence “want to hang” gay people. Warren lays into Trump for having “weaponized the language of religion” to discriminate against LGBT people and abandoning U.S. global leadership on international LGBT rights.

The thorough plans are not unlike the comprehensive proposals from Beto O’Rourke, who made his plan public in June, and now ex-candidate Kirsten Gillibrand. In another approach, Joseph Biden, have kept things simpler by making the Equality Act his central priority and more generally promising to be a friend to LGBT people.

The candidates will likely expound on their proposals in the upcoming forum. The four-and-a-half hour event, set to air on CNN and hosted by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, will run from 7 pm to 11:30 pm ET.

Read Warren’s plan here, read a summary of Buttigieg’s plan here and read Buttigieg’s full plan here.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Christian lawyers take case of anti-trans athletes to appeals court

Besides campaigning for a national abortion ban, Alliance Defending Freedom aims to ban trans girls competing in girls’ high school sports

Published

on

Plaintiffs & ADF attorney in case (Photo by Dawn Ennis)

NEW YORK – A federal appeals judge in New York City on Thursday listened to attorneys arguing for and against a ban on transgender athletes in high school sports, the first federal case challenging a policy of inclusion.

Now it’s up to Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals to decide whether a landmark case should be retried or tossed out. 

The case, brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom in February 2020, was dismissed by a federal judge in Connecticut in April 2021. 

The ADF, a conservative Christian law group labeled an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is appealing the decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny. The ADF claims he was biased in favor of the defendants, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and several Connecticut boards of education. 

Their original lawsuit and this appeal claims that by permitting transgender student-athletes to compete according to their gender identity, the CIAC and the schools discriminated against the plaintiffs: cisgender women who were track and field athletes in high school in Connecticut. They have all gone on to win collegiate sports scholarships: Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell and Alanna Smith. 

“Today we argued that my clients, Selena, Chelsea and Alanna, their records and achievements matter, and we ought to be able to prove our case in court,” said ADF Senior Counsel Christiana Kiefer outside court in Manhattan. “And so, we’re asking that the judges here allow the case to continue to move forward.” 

A fourth plaintiff, Ashley Nicoletti, was added to the case last year. The women claim they couldn’t win against trans girls, and because they were forced to compete with trans girls, they were “denied the chance to be champions.” 

They also want the court to order the state to change its track and field records and championship-winning results and erase the names of two transgender athletes: Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller.

In their appeal, and in their press release following today’s hearing, the ADF attorneys repeatedly misgendered the two young Black women, referring to them as “boys” and “biological males.” Yearwood and Miller are not named in the suit, but American Civil Liberties Union attorneys represented them at the hearing.

The ACLU tweeted what the organization called “the facts” of the case, responding to the ADF’s arguments, including that Mitchell and Smith did in fact beat Yearwood and Miller and that three of the four plaintiffs actually did win championships. 

“Connecticut’s laws preventing discrimination against trans youth in school and sports are consistent with federal law,” said Elana Bildner, ACLU Foundation of Connecticut senior staff attorney, in a statement. “For years now, Andraya and Terry have carried more on their shoulders, as two Black trans youth, than most adults face in a lifetime.”

“The plaintiffs’ argument is filled with hypotheticals about a dystopia where cisgender girls disappear from the podium, but the court must rely on facts,” said ACLU attorney Joshua Block. “The facts are that these plaintiffs repeatedly outperformed Andraya and Terry and won an impressive collection of first place trophies in the process. There is enough room on the victory podium for transgender girls too. Under Title IX, all girls, including transgender girls, should be able to participate fully and equally in athletics, in accordance with who they are.”

Yearwood and Miller’s records and the lawsuit naming them have been cited in several states across the U.S. where legislatures have considered and enacted bans on trans student-athletes. Outside court, Block called this case “sort of Exhibit A,” in that effort. “It’s held up as an example of the dangers that would happen if transgender girls were allowed to participate. And the reality is that that’s based on a completely false premise, because there’s no cisgender girls getting pushed off the victory podium. The plaintiffs in this case have been on the victory podium on multiple occasions.”

Miller and Yearwood did not win any sports scholarships to colleges and are not pursuing track and field following their graduation from their high schools. 
You can read the filing by ADF by clicking here.

The ACLU’s statement is here.

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Think tank shuts down: Study shows little LGBTQ impact on military

After 24 years of researching LGBT military service bans, the Palm Center announced September 19 it was closing its doors on September 25

Published

on

Color Guard members from the Navy and Marine Corps march at the 2018 San Diego Pride Parade. (MC3 Nicholas Burgains/Navy)

GOLETA, Ca. – The Palm Center, a think tank founded in 1998 at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which researched military policy concerning LGBTQ service members, most notably during the ongoing policy debates that led to the repeal in 2011 of the Clinton era policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” (DADT) announced it is shutting down.

After 24 years of researching LGBT military service bans, the independent research institute, which worked with numerous partner organizations carving out a research niche that involved conducting and publicizing studies that were leveraged to overturn two longstanding bans on service by openly LGBT troops, announced September 19 it was closing its doors on September 25.

In press statement released the Palm Center listed some of its accomplishments:

  • Spearheading hard-hitting communications campaigns grounded in research, such as uncovering data on Arabic linguists fired for being gay and discovering that the Pentagon was sending gay troops to war, only to fire them upon their return from battle
  • Paving the way for repeal of the military’s transgender ban by dismantling medical arguments that sustained discrimination, and receiving White House recognition for being one of the organizations most responsible for helping the military lift its transgender ban
  • Cultivating support for inclusion from top leaders such as former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former U.S. Surgeons General
  • Conducting 65 research studies, many of which were published in top peer-reviewed as well as military journals

“Few organizations figured out how to move the needle on military opinion so effectively as the Palm Center,” said U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“Its research and policy guidance were invaluable in showing that inclusive service was not complicated and would not harm readiness,” he said. “The Palm Center reframed the national conversation over LGBT military service, using facts and research to conclusively demonstrate that inclusion makes our armed forces, and our country, stronger.”

Navy Admiral. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(Photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley)

Mullen, who became an LGBTQ hero when, as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of repealing the harmful anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy.

“Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

“For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution,” he said. “I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change,” continued Mullen. “I never underestimate their ability to adapt.”

Earlier this month the Palm Center highlighted a 196-page document, published in 2021 by the Joint History and Research Office, which provides support to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to the Joint Staff, that found that opposition to open service by gay, lesbian, and bisexual troops was based on overblown fears among both military leadership and the rank and file.

The study also found that found that concerns about combat effectiveness and unit cohesion were basically unfounded.

The study began in 2012, Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Joe Holstead told Military Times this week, in recognition of “the historical significance of the 2010 decision to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” and released ― but not publicized ― in April 2021.

The study, “Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Historical Perspective from the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” is a public document that appears to mirror a 2016 classified report with the same title. It is unclear why the report was originally classified. The Palm Center sought comment from the Joint History and Research Office but did not receive a response.

“Time and again, opponents of equality have claimed that inclusion would harm America’s most important institutions and threaten the nation itself,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center. “And time and again, that’s turned out to be false. This official military study makes clear the yawning gap between fearmongering and reality, and should guide dialogue about similar claims in the present, such as fears that inclusion for transgender Americans is somehow a threat to our society.”

The report describes dramatic fears of harm to readiness during the 2009-10 lead-up to the ban’s repeal, and contrasts them with consistent findings of no impact. A section entitled, “A Nonissue,” reports that some of the service chiefs who had opposed repeal or predicted harm to unit cohesion and effectiveness, conceded that their concerns were unfounded, and that readiness concerns were often based on misperceptions and stereotypes.

General James Amos, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and the most vociferous opponent of inclusion in the upper ranks of the military, had told Congress at the time that repeal “has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for combat.”

Yet “two months later, General James Amos told reporters that the policy change had been a ‘non-event’” and that he was “very pleased” with how the policy change had gone. 

Similarly, when the military’s combatant commanders were asked to assess the impact of repeal on readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting, and retention two months after the ban ended, they “reported no impact on any of these categories.”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after Mullen, told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2013 (two years after repeal) that he agreed with the combatant commanders’ conclusion that the policy change had “no impact” in undermining readiness.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal jury indicts doctor & her spouse: Passing info to Russia

They received public attention in 2015 after becoming the first known active-duty Army officer to come out as transgender

Published

on

Jamie Lee Henry & their spouse Anna Gabrielian (Los Angeles Blade collage from social media)

BALTIMORE – A federal grand jury on Wednesday handed down an indictment of a Johns Hopkins anesthesiologist and her spouse, a doctor and major in the U.S. Army, with conspiracy and for the disclosure of individually identifiable health information related to their efforts to assist Russia in connection with the conflict in Ukraine.

The United States Attorney’s office for Maryland in a press release stated that the indictment charging Anna Gabrielian, age 36, and her spouse, Jamie Lee Henry, age 39, both of Rockville, Maryland, both of whom had secret clearances, were attempting to provide medical information about members of the military to the Russian government.

Gabrielian and Henry met with an individual they believed to be associated with the Russian government, but who was, in fact, a Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Agent.

In court documents filed Gabrielian told the FBI agent posing as a Russian operative that she had previously reached out to the Russian embassy by email and phone, offering Russia her and her spouses’ assistance.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s office Gabrielian told the FBI agent that, although Henry knew of Gabrielian’s interaction with the Russian Embassy, she never mentioned Henry’s name to the Russian Embassy.

In the narrative released by the U.S. Attorney’s office, on August 17, 2022, Gabrielian met with the FBI at a hotel in Baltimore.  During that meeting, Gabrielian told the FBI she was motivated by patriotism toward Russia to provide any assistance she could to Russia, even if it meant being fired or going to jail. 

She proposed potential cover stories for her meeting with the “Russians” and stressed the need for “plausible deniability” in the event she was confronted by American authorities. Gabrielian also told the FBI that, as a military officer, Henry was currently a more important source for Russia than she was, because they had more helpful information, including how the United States military establishes an army hospital in war conditions and information about previous training provided by the United States military to Ukrainian military personnel. 

Gabrielian’s spouse is U.S. Army Major Jamie Lee Henry, who identifies as a transgender military physician on their Twitter account.

Henry received public attention in 2015 after becoming the first known active-duty Army officer to come out as transgender.

Henry was at one point a member of SPARTA, the nation’s largest nonprofit representing actively-serving transgender U.S. servicemembers. A spokesperson for SPARTA, in an emailed statement, commenting on the announcement of the arrest and indictment of Henry and their spouse told the Blade:

“Transgender people are as diverse as the societies to which they belong. One’s gender identity neither increases nor decreases a propensity towards alleged criminal activity.”

As stated in the indictment, Gabrielian is an anesthesiologist and worked at Medical Institution 1, located in Baltimore, Maryland.  Henry, a Major in the United States Army, who held a Secret-level security clearance, is Gabrielian’s spouse and a doctor.  During the time of the alleged conspiracy, Henry worked as a staff internist stationed at Fort Bragg, the home of the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps, headquarters of the United States Army Special Operations Command, and the Womack Army Medical Center.

Gabrielian was scheduled to have initial appearance at 11:30 a.m. Thursday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore before U.S. Magistrate Judge Brendan A. Hurson.  Henry is also expected to have an initial appearance today, although a time has not yet been set.

Full statement from SPARTA:

“SPARTA, a non-profit advocacy organization representing transgender Service members in the United States, is saddened to learn of the arrest and indictment of Jamie Lee Henry, an officer in the United States Army and a medical doctor.

SPARTA has long advocated for the inclusion and total equity for transgender persons throughout the United States uniformed services. Today, thousands are serving honorably and authentically at home stations worldwide.

The actions alleged in the indictment do not reflect Henry’s identity as transgender. Their alleged actions are those of an individual and should not be taken as a representation of transgender people broadly or transgender members of the military specifically.

All people in the United States are entitled to the same rights, including due process and the presumption of innocence in this case. SPARTA does not condone any actions alleged in the indictment and expects the process to play out fairly and equitably as it would for anyone accused of a crime.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Advertisement

Popular