DADT: Goodbye Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Hello To A New Civil Rights Movement

Published

April 29, 2014 at 03:13 PM ET

When Tanya Domi joined the Women’s Army Corps 37 years ago as a “slick sleeve” Private in 1974, she had no idea how theÂ “Gay Ban”Â militaryÂ policy which precededÂ “Don’t Ask, Don’t TellÂ ” byÂ 52 years would affect her life. Its ultimate repeal, fought successfullyÂ by a new generation of veterans and activistsÂ marks the beginning of aÂ newÂ civil rights movement in America.Â

Today is a special day in American history. Indeed,Â the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law marks a major advancement in America’s political compact to create a “more perfect union” by extending the right to gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. As of this morningÂ at 12:01 a.m. inÂ all time zones across the planet, for the first time in the 235 years since the U.S. Military was established, gays may serve openly in uniformÂ without fear of discharge.

I would have never imagined how much the gay ban in the military would affect my life when I enlisted in the Women’s Army Corps in 1974 (I was not out to myself, let alone to anyone else when I enlisted.) The gay ban, most recently known as DADT, which becameÂ law in 1993,Â became a part of my dailyÂ venacular since that day in 1974 whenÂ I was called into a dark investigator’s office at Ft. Devens, Massachusetts, was read my Miranda rights and was charged with the crime ofÂ “homosexuality,” following an innocent first visit to a gay bar in Boston.

By the time the Ft. Devens witchhunt for lesbiansÂ took placeÂ in the mid-1970s, the American governmentÂ had officially discriminated against gays and lesbians who served in the military for 33 years, a practice initiated by psychiatristsÂ who had pathologized homosexuality in a new policy created to actively exclude them from the ranks (see Coming Out Under Fire, by Alan Berube)Â asÂ AmericaÂ launched aÂ draft effort that would brings millions of Americans into uniformÂ during World War II.

Most recently,Â the American media–populated byÂ lazy journalists–have regularlyÂ portrayed DADT absentÂ the factualÂ history of an American governmentÂ thatÂ has viciously pursued homosexuals in the ranksÂ forÂ more than two centuries. Since the days of General George Washington and the Continental Army, the American government had beenÂ meting out punishmentsÂ toÂ homosexuals. Under Washington, homosexuals wereÂ “drummedÂ out”Â andÂ tarred and feathered, and court martialed. Later, homosexuals wereÂ imprisoned for sodomy, delivered sentencingÂ that included hard labor in maximum security prisons, or imprisoned in Navy brigs, which included the added indignityÂ of being fed “bread and water.” Others were given nonjudicial punishment that resulted in the reduction of rank, and issuance of life-alteringÂ derogatory discharges that were characterized as “other than honorable,” “bad conduct,” and even, “dishonorable and psychiatric discharges.” Most recently, policyÂ migrated toÂ applyingÂ financial penalties which beganÂ underÂ President George H. W. Bush in 1991, which applied aÂ 50 percent reduction in benefits, not withstanding the receipt of an honorable discharge.

Today, as the bells of freedom ring across America for lesbian, gay, bisexual (but NOT trans persons) in the military, the sky won’t fall, gay marches will not ensue on military basesÂ (although, why not?) gays in uniforms will notÂ mobÂ barracks or officer clubsÂ in flaunting flamingo dances, ultimatelyÂ belying the unfoundedÂ red-herring claims ofÂ wild-eyed,Â virulentlyÂ anti-gay activistÂ Elaine Donnelly. (Could we be so lucky that Donnelly will recede into history too?)

Indeed, while many across America todayÂ will celebrate this great moment, a new generation of LGBTQ activists, dominated by the “Millenials,” will mark this victoryÂ by takingÂ to the streets in dozens of actions across the country,Â toÂ illuminateÂ the vastÂ inequality of LGBT AmericansÂ under federal civil law,Â ledÂ by GetEQUAL, a national organization dedicated to applyingÂ the principles of nonviolent civil disobedience.Â GetEQUAL played a decisive role in the demise of DADTÂ when a number of activists–including Iraq war veteranÂ Lt. Dan Choi– chained themselves to the White House fence, bringing a new image to the face of discrimination in America and no doubt, caused consternation within the Obama White House.

GetEQUAL arrived on the national scene duringÂ the most recentÂ battle to take down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”Â emerging to play a classic activist, outsiderÂ role, and, while sometimes disconcerting to mainstream groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), gave the DADT repeal effort the necessary political pressure to finally repeal legalized discrimination in the military.

GetEQUAL did not come out of “nowhere,” it was founded by a number of people, most prominently its director Robin McGehee.

McGehee, a lesbian and mother of twoÂ from Mississippi, had moved to Fresno, and became a co-director of the National Equality March and the Meet in the Middle March 4 Equality of 2009. She, along with many others, was radicalized by California voters who in November 2008 supported Proposition 8, overturning marriage equality for lesbians and gays by way of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex partners, reversing the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision.

McGehee repeatedly says, she would rather spend time with her family than take on this fight for equality, but because she knows that discrimination must be challenged, she has stepped forward in very brave and decisive ways, emerging as one of America’s top leaders in the LGBTQ civil rights movement today.

In August, McGehee, along with Heather Cronk, the managing director of GetEQUAL, brought 92 activists from 25 states and the District of Columbia together in Memphis, Tennessee for a national meeting and training to discuss how the LGBTQ activist community can move forward in a nationally strategic and tactical manner that will advance our new civil rights movement toward full federal equality. Cronk a community activist, with superlative management and organizing skills, put together the training in collaboration with United We Dream immigration activists and community organizers, working and planning together in an unprecedented manner to advance the rights of the LGBTQ community. In Memphis, McGehee called on activists to take bold action around the country and put pressure on elected officials from California to Maine. Today, that plan and those actions are happening in 12 different locations across the country.

At the stroke of midnight today,Â McGehee tweeted,Â “Deep love & respect to ALL individuals & orgs who helped take us another step closer to = “. Â GetEQUAL understands that we can’t achieve equality through one strategy alone–we must work together as a civil rights movement and use all political sticks and carrots to move our equality agenda forward and not leave anyone behind in a community that should and can be lead by principled leadership at all levels of activism.

Let me raise a flag and plant one too:Â I joined GetEQUAL’s board recently because I don’t choose to wait another 40 years to achieve federal equality for LGBT people. I want to see and experience full federal equality in my lifetime. Watching GetEQUAL take on the Obama Administration’s double talk and delay tactics made me a true believer in bringing back principled non-violent civil disobedience as a legitimate tool in organizing for equality. That stick disappeared when ActUp! faded from the scene in the 1990s. GetEQUAL has replaced it at a vital moment in our history.

So as we shift from “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”Â to expand our civil rights further, including trans rights in the military, my personal life involves a loving commitment to my Canadian partner, whom I have been with for nearly the past six years. We met and fell in love in New York City, our home. Under the NAFTA trade agreement my partner can legally work in America, but she does not have the right to permanent resident status through her work permit alone. These work permits are approved for three-year periods and must be renewed in order for her to remain in New York City. Because of DOMA, our relationship does not qualify for immigration status entitling her to live and work freely in the United States on a permanent basis.

In the new post-repeal military, I do believe that its leadership will not be exactly comfortable with the inequality of our gay families’ lives who are on active duty. To be denied housing and health care benefits because of DOMA, soldiers will sadly worry, for good reason, about the well-being of their families, thus distracting them from the mission at hand. This inequality will come into stark relief during the course of regular military life and ultimately, that unfairness delivered by the hands of DOMA, must face the glaring spotlight that we activists must directly expose.

This is a happy day for some of us in our community, but none of us should ever be satisfied or complacent with progress for one part of the community. GetEQUAL is going to be around to remind not only the community, but the rest of country, that we are not equal until all of us become fully equal under America’s laws.

Let me leave you with the words of the poet Langston Hughes wrote in “Democracy”:

I tire so of hearing people say,Â
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

There is a great need for more equality. We are not done. We are not finished, until we are all equal together as one. Meet you at the barricades until we GetEQUAL.

Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University who teaches about human rights in Eurasia and is a Harriman Institute affiliated faculty member. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi worked internationally for more than a decade on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights, gender issues, sex trafficking, and media freedom.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

IMPEACH HIM AGAIN

Rep. Al Green Files Impeachment Article Against Trump Over Iran: ‘Threat to Democracy’

Published

8 hours ago

June 24, 2025

Matt Keeley

Tuesday morning, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump over the United States’ strike on three sites in Iran this weekend.

Green’s article of impeachment alleges that Trump violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. That section says only Congress can declare war.

“In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally-mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now, usurping congressional war powers,” Green wrote.

Though the meat of the impeachment article is about Iran, Green also calls out other objectionable things done by Trump.

“President Trump’s unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice constitutes an abuse of power when there was no imminent threat to the United States, which facilitates the devolution of American democracy into authoritarianism, with an authoritarian president who has instigated an attack on the United States Capitol, denied persons due process of the law, and called for the impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him—making Donald J. Trump a threat to American democracy,” he said.

Green’s article of impeachment is unlikely to go anywhere. The House is controlled 220-212 by the Republican party. Even though some House Republicans like Thomas Massie (R-WV) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have criticized Trump’s action in Iran, even if every Democrat voted in favor of impeachment, it would be a tall order for nine Republicans to flip. An article of impeachment only needs a simple majority in the House before going to the Senate.

Trump is the only president to be successfully impeached twice. However, he has never been convicted.

Though Trump did not have Congressional approval to order the U.S. to attack Iran—and, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, they were only informed afterward—the Constitution isn’t as clear as it might sound. The last time Congress declared war was in 1942, but there have been many wars since then, but by different names; the Korean War was officially a “police action.”

The president is officially Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, and as such, can order a response to attacks, or other limited military actions without the approval of Congress. During the Vietnam War (another “police action”), President Richard Nixon ordered the secret bombings of Cambodia without informing Congress. Once this was revealed, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which puts limits on what the president can do without Congressional approval.

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can order a military action, but must inform Congress within 48 hours. Armed forces cannot stay in an area for over 60 days, though they can have a window of an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Trump has been accused of violating the War Powers Resolution twice before. The first was in 2017, when Trump ordered a missile strike in Syria over allegations the country had used chemical weapons. Next was in 2020 when the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. Neither of these accusations, however, resulted in anything.

Image via Reuters

CRIME

DOJ Sues Washington State Over Law Requiring Catholic Priests to Report Child Abuse

Published

1 day ago

June 23, 2025

Matt Keeley

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Washington state over a new law requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse even if knowledge of the abuse was obtained during confession.

The law, Senate Bill 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 2, and would go into effect on July 27. The bill makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, much like doctors and teachers. Catholic bishops in Washington have condemned the law because it does not address the sacred rite of confession.

Under the law, if abuse is revealed during confession, the priest must report it to police or the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families. However, in the Catholic faith, the Seal of Confession directs priests to keep anything they learn during confession secret—even under the threat of imprisonment or death. Should a priest fail to do so, they would be excommunicated.

“I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred,” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of the Spokane, Washington diocese wrote in a statement.

A previous version of the bill did include a provision protecting priests from revealing anything learned during confession. Catholic bishops and Republicans in the state senate argued for the provision, but it was ultimately removed. All Republicans voted against the final version of the bill, along with two Democrats; it passed 28-20. Though the law requires priests to report abuse, it does not compel them to testify in court.

In response, a number of bishops filed a lawsuit, Etienne v. Ferguson, to stop the law. On June 16, a group of Orthodox churches in Washington state filed a similar lawsuit.

Gov. Ferguson, a Catholic, said he was dismayed by the suit.

“I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids,” Ferguson said.

The Department of Justice joined the fray on Monday. The DOJ called the law “anti-Catholic,” saying it violates the First Amendment. Monday’s suit is a motion to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson.

“Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

Senate Bill 5375 is the third time the Washington senate was asked to make clergy mandatory reporters. The bill’s prime sponsor was Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who told KING-TV she brought the newest version before the Senate after hearing that three different Catholic archdioceses in the state were under investigation over allegations of covering up abuse.

“Quite frankly, that made it hard for me to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse of children,” Frame said in January. “I really wonder about all the children who have been abused and neglected and have gone unprotected by the adults in their lives because we didn’t have a mandated reporter law and that we continue to try to protect this in the name of religious freedom.”

Image via Shutterstock

'VERY COOL VERY NORMAL'

FTC Blocks Advertising Company From Boycotting Media Outlets Based on Political Views

Published

1 day ago

June 23, 2025

Matt Keeley

The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.

The New Civil Rights Movement

DADT: Goodbye Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Hello To A New Civil Rights Movement

DADT: Goodbye Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Hello To A New Civil Rights Movement