The proposed regulation — issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — would require hospitals that receive funds under Medicare and Medicaid to allow patients during a hospital stay to designate a same-sex partner as a visitor.

“Every patient deserves the basic right to designate whom they wish to see while in the hospital,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today’s proposed rules would ensure that all patients have equal access to the visitors of their choosing — whether or not those visitors are, or are perceived to be, members of a patient’s family.”

The new announcement comes on the heels of a letter Sebelius sent to hospitals on Tuesday calling on hospitals to go forward with the change even before the rule-making process is complete

President Obama directed HHS to develop these new rules in an April 15 presidential memorandum. In the same directive, Obama also asked HHS to develop policy to require hospitals to comply with directives giving LGBT Americans the authority to make emergency medical decisions for their partners. The memorandum also asks for additional recommendations on ways to address LGBT health issues in 180 days.

Don McLeon, an HHS spokesperson, said a group within the department is “actively working” on ways to implement other parts of the president’s memorandum.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, praised HHS for starting the process for issuing the hospital visitation change.

“Today’s announcement brings us a step closer to providing a critical protection for LGBT Americans and their families,” Solmonese said.

The proposed rules would mandate hospitals have written policies for patients’ visitation rights and specify instances in which the hospital may restrict patient access to visitors based on reasonable clinical needs.
 
According to HHS, one key provision of the proposed rules spells out that visitors chosen by a patient must have the same visitation privileges afforded to immediate family members.

The proposed regulations will be available for public comment for 60 days and are set to become final after CMS has considered the comments.

On Friday, the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety & Availability, which provides recommendations to the Department of Health & Human Services on blood safety and blood products, voted 9-6 against recommending to allow gay and bisexual to donate blood. The committee cited insufficient scientific data to support a change.

Still, by a 14-0 vote, the committee acknowledged that the current policy is imperfect and recommended additional research to support a policy that would allow low-risk gay and bisexual men to donate.

The committee came to the conclusion after hearing two days of testimony on whether testing proceedings and societal changes have advanced enough to permit for a change in policy.

The FDA instituted the blood donor ban in 1983 in response to the AIDS crisis. The policy prohibits any man who’s had sex even once with another man since 1977 from donating blood. At the time, the policy was deemed necessary because gay and bisexual men have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS infection.

LGBT rights supporters have been seeking to overturn the ban on the grounds that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men — and that testing procedures for HIV/AIDS have improved significantly since 1983.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the committee’s recommendations will go to Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh for consideration.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization is “disappointed” the committee chose to preserve a policy that “turns away healthy gay and bisexual donors.”

“However, the Committee recognized that the current policy is inadequate and the Department of Health and Human Services must immediately commit its resources to research that will allow our nation to adopt a fair and safe blood donation policy,” Solmonese said.

Expressing anger the committee’s decision was Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.

“This decision is outrageous, irresponsible and archaic,” she said. “We expect more out of this advisory committee and this administration than to uphold an unnecessarily discriminatory policy from another era.”

The Blade will have a more complete report on the way forward for lifting the blood donor ban next week.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces the state’s campaign finance rules, reportedly identified 13 instances of non-monetary contributions — totaling in the amount of $39,628 — that the Mormon Church failed to report on a timely basis in accordance with state election laws.

On Thursday, the recommended action will go before the FPPC commissioners in Sacramento, Calif., for final approval.

The LDS Church is credited with being among the leading forces in the campaign in favor of Proposition 8, which ended same-sex marriage in California in 2008.

Still, last year, the Mormon Church said its total contributions to “Yes on 8″ tallied at $189,904, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the $43.3 million raised by Prop 8 proponents, according to the Deseret News.

Opponents of Prop 8 in California have said they believe the Mormon Church’s support for the initiative is evident in the individual contributions that church members made to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, praised the FPPC for its action. The HRC statement said the fine “may seem inconsequential,” but sheds light on the Mormon Church’s activities in the Prop 8 campaign.

HRC said the proposed fine “provides ongoing evidence that the Mormon Church was a significant leader in the campaign to repeal marriage equality, even while it evaded standard reporting requirements and denied its involvement.”

Scott Trotter, an LDS Church spokesman, was quoted in the Deseret News as saying the church reported all its contributions to the “Yes on 8” campaign, but acknowledged that it failed to report some non-monetary contributions in a brief period before Election Day.

“In the last two weeks leading up to the election, the Church mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement and instead reported those contributions together in a later filing,” Trotter reportedly said.

According to the Deseret News, the FFPC could have imposed of $5,000 fine for each infraction depending on their severity, but settled on a “streamlined enforcement process” and fined the church 15 percent of the value for each late-reported contribution.

In the memo, Obama says for “far too long” federal employees with domestic partners have been denied equal access to “basic rights and benefits their colleagues enjoy.”

“This kind of systemic inequality undermines the health, well-being, and security not just of our federal workforce, but also of their families and communities,” she said.

As a result of the memo, new benefits required by the federal government include making children of federal workers with same-sex partners eligible for federal child-care subsidies and child-care services.

Additionally, same-sex partners and their children now qualify as “family members” for the purposes of employee assistance programs.

The new memo builds off an earlier memo Obama issued in June direecting federal agencies to determine whether the Defense of Marriage Act prohibited the federal government from offering these benefits.

In the new memo, Obama says the U.S. Office of Personnel Management provided him a report recommending that all these benefits can and should be extended.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the new memorandum is “certainly a positive step” in providing equal rights to LGBT couples.

“The limitations of these new benefits however serve as a glaring reminder that the Defense of Marriage Act ultimately stands in the way of providing true equality to LGBT Americans,” he said.

In another statement, OPM Director John Berry, the highest ranking openly gay person in the Obama administration, praised Obama for going forward with these benefits.

“This is another major step forward for gay and lesbian federal employees,” Berry said. “But it’s also a good business practice — this will help us retain valuable employees and better compete with other employers for top talent.”

The OPM statement says the agency has issued guidance to all the federal agencies to implement the president’s memo.

But even with the new directive, most of the major of benefits afforded to the spouses of straight workers — health and pension benefits — cannot be extended to same-sex couples under current law.

Passage of the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, which is pending for floor consideration in Congress, would rectify this situation.

In the new memo, Obama apparently recognizes the need for this bill and says “legislative action is necessary to provide full equality to LGBT federal employees.”

Solmonese commended Obama’s recommendation for further legislation to offer major benefits to federal workers in same-sex relationships.

“We welcome the President’s renewed call to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act and call on Congress to pass it swiftly,” Solmonese said. “When a majority of the Fortune 500 offer equal benefits, it should be a no-brainer that the federal government catch up.”

According to a recent report from the Williams Institute, an estimated 34,000 federal workers were in open relationships with same-sex partners in 2007. The new changes specified by Obama could assist these federal workers.

Lawmakers approved the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), by a 234-194 vote after hours of discussion on whether Congress should repeal the statute.

Five Republicans voted in favor of repeal: Reps. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii), Joseph Cao (R-La.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas). Joining other Republicans to vote against the measure were 26 Democrats.

In remarks on the floor, Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is necessary because the policy compromises national security and has cost the American taxpayer more than $1.3 billion.

“When I served in Baghdad, my team did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay,” he said. “With our military fighting two wars, why on earth would we tell over 13,500 able-bodied Americans that their services are not needed?”

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also spoke out in favor of the amendment and said passing repeal was a means of honoring the service of members of the armed forces.

“Today, by repealing the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, we also honor the service and sacrifices of all who dedicated their lives to protecting the American people,” she said. “We honor the values of our nation, and we close the door on fundamental unfairness.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) was among those speaking out against the repeal amendment on the floor, but his remarks were limited.

After reading an April 30 letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging Congress to hold off on repeal, Skelton said “I oppose the amendment.”

Following the vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the approval of the measure means House members are standing “on the right side of history.”

“This is a historic step to strengthen our armed forces and to restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly,” he said.

The vote in the House means repeal language is in both the House and Senate versions of defense authorization legislation. Earlier in the day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of attaching repeal as part of its version of the bill.

In debate over the amendment, lawmakers who supported it advocated for its passage as a means to end discrimination, while opponents said the Pentagon study on the issue — due December 1 — should first be complete.

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) was among those urging other House members to vote in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Anyone who’s willing to put on this country’s uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to discrimination,” he said. “Repealing this flawed policy is an important way for us to show that respect.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, provided some of the strongest objections to passing the repeal measure.

He said he wanted the Pentagon working group to complete its work in soliciting the input of U.S. service members before any action from Congress.

“After making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of eight years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard,” McKeon said. “Congress acting first is the equivalent of turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying your opinions don’t count.”

Lawmakers approved the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), by a 234-194 vote after hours of discussion on whether Congress should repeal the statute.

Five Republicans voted in favor of repeal: Reps. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii), Joseph Cao (R-La.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas). Joining other Republicans to vote against the measure were 26 Democrats.

In remarks on the floor, Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is necessary because the policy hurts national security and has cost the American taxpayer more than $1.3 million.

“When I served in Baghdad, my team did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay,” he said. “With our military fighting two wars, why on earth would we tell over 13,500 able-bodied Americans that their services are not needed?”

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also spoke out in favor of the amendment and said passing repeal was keeping in line with honoring the service of members of the armed forces.

“Today, by repealing the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, we also honor the service and sacrifices of all who dedicated their lives to protecting the American people,” she said. “We honor the values of our nation, and we close the door on fundamental unfairness.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) was among those speaking out against the repeal amendment on the floor, but his remarks were limited.

After reading an April 30 letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging Congress to hold off on repeal, Skelton said “I oppose the amendment.”

Following the vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the approval of the measure means House members are standing “on the right side of history.”

“This is a historic step to strengthen our armed forces and to restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly,” he said.

The vote in the House means repeal language is in both the House and Senate versions of defense authorization legislation. Earlier in the day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of attaching repeal as part of its version of the bill.

In debate over the amendment, lawmakers who supported it advocated for its passage as a means to end discrimination, while opponents said the Pentagon study on the issue — due December 1 — should first be complete.

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) was among those urging other House members to vote in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Anyone who’s willing to put on this country’s uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to discrimination,” he said. “Repealing this flawed policy is an important way for us to show that respect.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, provided some of the strongest objections to passing the repeal measure.

He said he wanted the Pentagon working group to complete its work in soliciting the input of U.S. service members before any action from Congress.

“After making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of eight years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard,” McKeon said. “Congress acting first is the equivalent of turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying your opinions don’t count.”

On Thursday, various LGBT groups issued statements saying the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of attaching a repeal measure, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

The proceedings of the Senate Armed Services Committee were closed to the public and so couldn’t immediately be verified.

According to sources familiar with the deliberation, Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) voted in favor of the amendment. They had told media outlets earlier in the week they were planning to vote in the affirmative.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) voted against the measure as he had earlier told the Boston Globe.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who never made a public announcement indicating his position on the amendment, also voted in favor of the measure. Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal were expecting him to vote “yes.”

The sole Democrat who voted against the amendment was Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). He had earlier told media outlets he sees no need to preempt the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study currently at the Pentagon by voting in favor of repeal at this time.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote in favor of repeal. Supporters of repeal were expecting her to be a “yes” vote on the amendment for some time.

While the Senate has taken action, the House has yet to attach similar language as part of its version of the defense budget legislation. The House is expected to take up the issue on the floor by Friday morning.

The legislative compromise adopted by the Senate committee would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue at the end of the year.

Additionally, the president and Pentagon leaders would have to certify that repeal won’t undermine military readiness — and 60 days would have to pass after this certification.

The measure also notably lacks the non-discrimination language for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members that was found in standalone versions of repeal legislation.

In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the Senate committee approved “a historic roadmap” to open service.

Still, he cautioned gay, lesbian and bisexual service members against being open about their sexual orientation while serving in the armed forces.

“It is important for all gay and lesbian, active-duty service members, including the reserves and the national guard, to know they’re at risk,” Sarvis said. “They must continue to serve in silence under the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that remains on the books.”

Sarvis said he’s hopeful Congress and the Pentagon would be able to finalize repeal by “no later than the first quarter of 2011.”

In another statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the importance of the Senate vote “cannot be overstated.”

“This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security,” Solmonese said. “The stars are aligning to finally restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly.”

Solmonese said Americans recognize that the sexual orientation of service members doesn’t matter so long as they “get the job done.”

“Those who wish to preserve discrimination in our military will continue to fight this progress but we will be there every step of the way to ensure that qualified men and women are allowed to serve their country, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, also commended the Senate committee for what he said was taking historic action to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“This initial victory today in the Senate Armed Services Committee is an historic first step forward in the drive to finally get the onerous ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law off the books forever,” Nicholson said. “All of us who have served under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and who have been impacted by this law will remember this day as the beginning of the end for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

A notice published earlier this month says the Department of Health & Human Services has scheduled a meeting next month of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety & Availability to discuss the issue. The committee is charged with providing recommendations to HHS on blood supply and blood products.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is set to take place at the Universities of Shady Grove in Rockville, Md. Discussion is scheduled over the course of two days, June 10-11. The meetings on both days are set for 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Fred Sainz, a Human Rights Campaign vice president and spokesperson, said the meeting “will determine whether or not the blood ban is repealed and what conditions, if any, would apply going forward.”

The FDA instituted the blood donor ban in 1983 in response to the AIDS crisis. The policy prohibits any man who’s had sex even once with another man since 1977 from donating blood. At the time, the policy was deemed necessary because gay and bisexual men have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS infection.

LGBT rights supporters have been seeking to overturn the ban on the grounds that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men — and that testing procedures for HIV/AIDS have improved significantly since 1983.

According to the Federal Register notice, the committee will consider “the most important factors … to consider in making a policy change” as well as whether current scientific information is sufficient to support ending the policy, and what studies and safety measures are needed before a change takes place.

In a statement last week, HRC President Joe Solmonese called on the FDA to end the blood donor ban, noting that the policy “cannot be justified by today’s science.”

“In 2010, we cannot continue to turn away healthy donors based on outdated stereotypes and a decades-old understanding of HIV and AIDS,” Solmonese said.

The HRC statement says that the organization plans to testify at the hearing and send a letter with an allied organization to urge a revision to FDA policy.

In a statement, Laurie Young, interim director of public policy and government affairs for the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said the re-examination of the gay blood donor ban is “long overdue.”

“The lifetime ban was initiated in 1983, at the beginning of the AIDS crisis,” she said. “Nearly 30 years later, the science has changed but the outdated policy remains.”

Young said the re-examination of the policy should “take into account” new disease screening techniques for blood donations, and “distinguish between high-risk and low-risk behavior in donors.”

In recent months, efforts to lift the ban have become more visible as many lawmakers have publicly urged the FDA to change its policy. In March, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and 17 other senators wrote a letter to the FDA asking for an end to the ban, calling it “outdated, medically and scientifically unsound deferral criteria for prospective blood donors.”

In a statement to the Blade this week, Kerry said the administration “is doing the right thing” by re-examining the ban.

“I believe the ban strikes everyone as outdated based on the science,” he said. “It’s a relic and it doesn’t make sense, especially compared to other policies we have in place.”

Kerry noted that under current regulations, a man who’s had sex with a prostitute is able to donate blood, but a gay man in a committed monogamous relationship is prohibited.

“That just doesn’t make sense to me on its face,” he said. “I look forward to hearing the results of this meeting as well as the FDA’s recommendations.”

President Barack Obama's administration endorsed Monday a path to repeal the law that prohibits gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces. (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of White House)

The legislative compromise that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal supporters in Congress unveiled this week has inspired mixed reactions and led LGBT leaders to advocate for its passage even as some expressed disappointment over its shortcomings.

Among those expressing displeasure was Lt. Dan Choi, a gay U.S. Army infantry soldier who was arrested twice for chaining himself to the White House fence in protest of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In an interview with the Blade on Monday, Choi said the proposal requires LGBT people to compromise themselves without getting much in return.

“In a compromise, it’s insinuated that both sides have given something, and I don’t see that,” he said. “So it’s too generous to call it that. It’s a delay and it’s asking us to further put our political agenda before the needs of the soldiers, and that’s who’s getting compromised.”

Despite his disappointment in the compromise language, Choi said he didn’t want the measure to fail this week when it came before Congress. He noted that “it’s only one step” in the path for non-discrimination in the U.S. military and people should keep fighting.

The measure in the Senate was made public Monday by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of standalone legislation for repeal in the Senate. On Tuesday, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), champion of standalone repeal legislation in the House, unveiled an identically worded companion bill.

The Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House were expected to vote on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” measures this week during consideration of Pentagon budget legislation known as the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. Neither vote occurred before Blade deadline.

The measures presented by Lieberman and Murphy would repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute mandating that openly gay, lesbian and bisexual people be discharged from the U.S. armed forces.

However, the law would only be repealed after the Pentagon completes its study — due Dec. 1 — on how to implement repeal in the U.S. military.

Further, President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen would have to certify that the U.S. military is ready for the transition and that the change “is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention.”

The legislation doesn’t give a timeline when the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to issue the certification. On Monday, the Associated Press reported that meeting those conditions for repeal would allow the Pentagon “perhaps even years” to prepare for repeal.

Notably, the legislation also lacks non-discrimination language and would return authority on discharging LGBT service members to the Pentagon.

Choi said the provisions in the legislation are “essentially compromising the integrity of the soldiers until a time to be determined” and compared the lack of a deadline for certification to a military commander issuing an order without a timeline.

“It’s devastating to the soldiers who don’t know and it leaves a lot of questions out there,” Choi said. “My question back to the president is how long are we going to force our soldiers to lie? Nobody can answer the question when.”

But Choi said “what bothers” him the most is the absence of the non-discrimination language that was contained in the standalone version of the bill.

“I thought the most heinous part of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was that it enforced discrimination, and now it just says that’s altogether not as important,” Choi said. “I think it’s within everybody’s mandate to get rid of discrimination where it exists.”

Choi said as a result of the compromise, LGBT soldiers could be subject to a policy that’s “turbulent and precarious.”

Also expressing disappointment about the lack of non-discrimination language was Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, who said removal of the non-discrimination language was “unnecessary” to get more support for repeal.

“I think we would have been in the same position had we not made three concessions and only made two,” he said. “Other minority groups have not received statutory non-discrimination protection in the military — this would have been something extra — but it was something we were on track to secure.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s not sure who initiated the idea of omitting non-discrimination language, but said those supporting repeal thought such a move would improve its chances of passage.

“It’s not anything that SLDN volunteered to give up,” Sarvis said. “I think at the end of the day, we all realized that we would have to live with this new compromise.”

The idea of removing non-discrimination language and returning authority on discharges to the Pentagon was advanced previously by the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military. Earlier this month, the Blade reported that the Palm Center had been asking other LGBT groups to support such a move.

But Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, said he didn’t know why the non-discrimination language was removed and noted that Palm wasn’t active in pushing for such a move as part of the compromise measure.

“This was news to me when I was told,” he said. “I was actually in bed when I was told and I promise you we had nothing to do with it.”

Still, Belkin said passing legislation with non-discrimination language is “not politically realistic” and the compromise measure advanced earlier this week is “what we can get.”

But Nicholson said the Palm Center pushed hard to have the non-discrimination language removed from the legislation, noting recent reports in which Belkin advocated the proposal.

Nicholson said Belkin was responsible for Saturday’s opinion piece in the Washington Post in which former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili advocated for a return of authority to the Pentagon.

“There’s been no secret about that fact that the Palm Center has lobbied hard to take out the non-discrimination language, including the [Shalikashvili] op-ed and several other pieces of media that the Palm Center has done,” Nicholson said.

Compromise brought White House support

While the compromise fell short of what repeal supporters initially sought, the conditions set forth in the proposal brought support from the White House, which opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had long sought.

In a letter published Monday, Peter Orzag, director of the Office of Management & Budget, writes the repeal measure adheres to the Pentagon’s request to finish its study on the issue at the end of the year and therefore is supported by the Obama administration.

Orzag says that the Pentagon review would be “ideally” completed before Congress takes action on the issue, but notes the administration “understands that Congress has chosen to move forward with the legislation now and seeks the administration’s views on the proposed amendment.”

In the letter, Orzag says he understands the amendment would ensure implementation of repeal is consistent with “standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.”

“The administration therefore supports the proposed amendment,” Orzag writes.

Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesperson, issued a statement Tuesday saying Gates supports the measure, although he still believes Congress should hold off on tackling the issue until after the Pentagon completes its study.

“Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the [Defense Department] review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law,” he said. “With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment.”

Having earned support from the administration, Sarvis said the amendment is “a path to repeal” and predicted that its passage could lead to open service “by the end of the first quarter of next year.”

After the review is complete and certification happens, Sarvis said the Pentagon “would then be free” to implement regulations for open service and Obama could issue an executive order for non-discrimination in the U.S. military.

“In fact, all of the federal policies of non-discrimination have been issued by executive order since 1948,” Sarvis said, referring to the order that President Truman issued to end racial segregation in the armed forces.

Sarvis said he didn’t think a future administration would tamper with such an executive order or “try to tinker with this and make it a political football.”

“For instance, the four executive orders that I’ve referred to since 1948 have not been undone by new administrations,” Sarvis said. “I think that if the president issues an executive order after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is eliminated — I don’t see a new Congress or a new administration trying to undo an executive order.”

But Choi said he doesn’t want supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal mistaking the Orzag letter in support of the proposal as Obama taking action on the issue. He noted the president could have transmitted repeal language to Congress for the defense budget legislation.

“Obviously, if he would have put the defense authorization bill language through to include the repeal legislation, then we wouldn’t be in this situation where he’s trying to get us to celebrate a win,” Choi said.

To follow-up on his earlier arrests at the White House and put more pressure on the president, Choi said he plans to take part in new acts of civil disobedience to draw attention to the issue of LGBT service members serving openly in the U.S. military.

“I not only plan to, but I encourage everybody else to,” Choi said. “The fact of the matter is so long as telling the truth is considered civil disobedience, we need to be committing civil disobedience every single day.”

Mission accomplished?

Several major LGBT organizations issued statements this week praising the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise shortly after it was announced.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said Monday the new support from the administration means people rallying against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops.”

“Today’s announcement paves the path to fulfill the president’s call to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation,” Solmonese said.

Nicholson of Servicemembers United said in a statement that Monday’s letter was “long awaited, much needed, and immensely helpful.”

Choi said the organizations apparently had their statements “all set up” to celebrate the compromise regardless of the deal’s content.

“Just from my military perspective, it seems very much like they’re putting a ‘mission accomplished’ banner on top of a carrier, and saying our part is done and we have fulfilled our mission,” Choi said. “For people to revel in this kind of celebration instead of encouraging people to demand the fullness of repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is certainly a misstep.”

Other LGBT groups that advocate for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as one issue in their portfolios indicated support for the compromise measure, although they acknowledged some shortcomings.

In a statement to the Blade, Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said her organization was “encouraged” that Congress and the administration was “taking a step” to address the legal discrimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“This presents a path that could end in men and women being able to serve openly, honestly and to great benefit of our country, but it falls short of providing clear assurances of protection and a specific timeline for implementation,” she said. “The important action this week is to ensure passage of this step toward full repeal.”


In another statement, Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, offered a similarly lukewarm statement on the compromise measure.

“The amendment and compromise fall short of an outright repeal, which was what we had all been hoping for,” she said. “While we are cautiously optimistic that this agreement will lead to a full repeal, it is not yet time to celebrate the end of this appalling and shameful law.”


Among the organizations to strongly support the White House’s endorsement of the compromise was SLDN. In a statement, Sarvis called the agreement a “dramatic breakthrough.”

In response to Choi’s criticism of the statements of support for reaching an agreement with the White House, Sarvis said he respects Choi’s service and commitment to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“His view of the legislative process and the strategy is not a view that I share,” Sarvis said. “On this one, in terms of legislative strategy and timing, I have a different view and my view is I want to get what’s realistic and I want to get something that will ensure that service members can serve openly as soon as possible.”

President Barack Obama's administration endorsed Monday a path to repeal the law that prohibits gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces. (Photo courtesy of DNC)

The White House has endorsed an approach to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” whereby legislation Congress passes to repeal the law would not become effective until after the Pentagon completes its study on the issue.

In a letter Monday, Director of the Office of Management & Budget Peter Orzag writes that an amendment proposed by supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal adheres to the Pentagon’s request to finish its study on the issue at the end of the year and therefore is supported by the Obama administration.

Orzag says that the Pentagon review would be “ideally” completed before Congress takes action on the issue, but notes the administration “understands that Congress has chosen to move forward with the legislation now and seeks the administration’s views on the proposed amendment.”

“Accordingly, the administration is of the view that the proposed amendment meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Orzag says.

Orzag also says in the letter that he understands the amendment would ensure implementation of repeal is consistent with “standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.”

Additionally, the amendment would “guarantee” the Pentagon has in place necessary policies and procedures to implement an end to the law. The measure would allow for the “critical need” to allow members of the U.S. armed forces to share their “concerns, insights and suggestions” about implementing the repeal process, according to the letter.

“The administration therefore supports the proposed amendment,” Orzag writes.

Notably, the proposed amendment lacks non-discrimination language and would return authority on discharging LGBT service members to the Pentagon.

The OMB letter came in response to another letter earlier in the day from repeal supporters in Congress — Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) — who asked the administration to support their proposed amendment.

The lawmakers’ letter says that they have created a proposal that “puts a process in place to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ once the working group has completed its review” and the president and Pentagon leaders “certify the repeal can be achieved consistent” with the standards of the military.

“We appreciate the input that you and the Pentagon have provided throughout this process and request the administration’s official views on our legislative proposal,” the lawmakers write.

In the House, supporters of repeal were anticipating Murphy to introduce an amendment to the floor this week that would attach repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

Later this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to markup the legislation and expected to consider a similar amendment.

Supporters of repeal previously said they were a few votes shy of passing repeal out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the OMB letter would move additional committee members to favor repeal, but the letter could serve to bolster these efforts.

Advocacy groups hailed the OMB letter for outlining an administration-backed path to passing repeal this year.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said Monday the new support from the administration means people rallying against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops.”

“Today’s announcement paves the path to fulfill the president’s call to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation,” Solmonese said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, called the agreement a “dramatic breakthrough.”

“The path forward crafted by the president, Department of Defense officials, and repeal leaders on Capitol Hill respects the ongoing work by the Pentagon on how to implement open service and allows for a vote this week,” Sarvis said.

While Sarvis said support from the administration would help ensure a winning vote, he said “we are not there yet” and “votes still need to be worked and counted.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said Monday’s letter was “long awaited, much needed, and immensely helpful.”

“We have been making the case to White House staff for more than a year now that delayed implementation is realistic, politically viable, and the only way to get the defense community on board with repeal, and we are glad to see the community and now the administration and defense leadership finally rally around this option,” he said.

The endorsement from the administration prompted at least one social conservative group to take action. On Tuesday, the Family Research Council planned to hold a conference call with media to “release new national polling on homosexuals in the military” and discuss a new ad campaign “to protect the military.”

An announcement from Family Research Council says Tony Perkins, the organization’s president, would also discuss “grassroots outreach in the lead up to this week’s expected debate and votes in Congress.”