Connect with us

Politics

Pentagon Reaches Settlement With Veterans Dismissed Over Sexuality

Published

on

Pentagon Reaches Settlement With Veterans Dismissed Over Sexuality

The Defense Department has reached a sweeping settlement with tens of thousands of people who were dismissed from military service because of their sexual identity, potentially paving the way for veterans to upgrade their discharge status and receive a range of benefits they had been denied.

The settlement, which the Pentagon agreed to late last week and was filed on Monday in Federal District Court in Northern California, must still be approved by a judge. It applies to a group of more than 30,000 veterans who received less-than-honorable discharges or whose discharge status lists their sexuality. Advocacy groups had filed a class-action civil rights lawsuit in 2023 alleging that the Pentagon had failed to remedy “ongoing discrimination” after the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy more than a decade earlier.

Those who leave the military with less-than-honorable discharges usually do not receive all of the benefits they would have been eligible for through the Veterans Affairs Department, including health care from the V.A.’s hospitals and clinics, educational benefits and access to job networks.

While the Defense Department has taken steps under the Biden administration to upgrade discharges and restore benefits for L.G.B.T.Q. veterans, the settlement is expected to make the process much easier. It would also help former service members remove references to their sexuality from their discharge paperwork. If a federal judge approves the settlement, it will be binding by law.

When reached for comment, the Pentagon referred to the Justice Department, which declined to comment. The settlement was reported earlier on Monday by CBS News.

Advertisement

Sherrill Farrell, 63, a Navy veteran who is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in an interview that news of the settlement was “overwhelming.” Ms. Farrell, who is lesbian, enlisted in the Navy in 1985. She was outed by a bunkmate and kicked out of training after only 10 months as a fireman apprentice. Her dreams of following the footsteps of her father and grandfather by serving in the military were crushed, and she never applied for benefits.

“It wasn’t about the money,” Ms. Farrell said. “It was about human decency and treating people fairly, and the people that are willing to defend our country regardless of what their sexual orientation is or who they love.”

L.G.B.T.Q. service members who were open about their sexual orientation were barred from the military until 2011, when President Barack Obama repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the end of the policy did nothing to address the effects of it that tens of thousands of service members who were discharged because of their sexuality experienced.

Those whose discharges remain less than honorable are still denied full benefits. Their only option for upgrading their discharge is to petition individually, a process that can take over a year, according to the nonprofit legal services organization Legal Aid at Work, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit.

In other cases, even when a discharge is honorable, paperwork can out veterans because it refers to them or their actions as “homosexual.” It might say that they “attempted to engage in homosexual marriage,” Elizabeth Kristen, a lawyer with Legal Aid at Work, said in an interview.

Advertisement

After the class-action lawsuit was initially filed in August 2023, the Defense Department began what it called a proactive review of service members who were discharged during the era of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That review concluded in October, and more than 800 service members who were kicked out had their discharges upgraded to honorable. It was the first time that the department had systematically reviewed discharges related to sexual identity.

But the settlement that the Pentagon agreed to on Friday would go even further, creating a streamlined process that would apply to more people in a larger time frame.

“What it says,” Ms. Kristen said of the settlement, “is that the word ‘homosexual’ being taken off your records, that should be essentially as easy as getting your name changed.”

Many veterans had no idea that there was a pathway to getting their paperwork fixed. Some, like Ms. Farrell, had felt shame and did not ask for benefits that they would have been entitled to, if not for a less-than-honorable discharge.

Ms. Farrell was openly lesbian when she enlisted, and she said she felt guilty for answering “no” to the application question “Are you homosexual?” It is the only time she recalls lying about her sexual identity, she said, because she knew her application would not have been considered if she had told the truth.

Advertisement

“I wanted to serve my country that bad,” Ms. Farrell said, choking up with emotion. “But because of my integrity and the way that I look at serving in the military, I kind of felt that they had a right to do what they did because I had lied.”

The settlement is one of several steps that the Biden administration has taken to remedy the effects of policies felt by L.G.B.T.Q. service members for decades. In June, President Biden offered clemency to some 2,000 veterans who were convicted of engaging in gay sex, which was outlawed by the military for more than 60 years, in order to address what he called a “historic wrong.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Video: Inside a Plan to Shut Down Pro-Palestinian Activism

Published

on

Video: Inside a Plan to Shut Down Pro-Palestinian Activism

What is Project Esther? Katie J.M. Baker, a national investigative correspondent for The New York Times, explores the Heritage Foundation’s plan to shut down pro-Palestinian activism, as well as actions taken by the Trump administration that appear to mirror its goals.

Continue Reading

Politics

Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case records

Published

on

Texas AG Ken Paxton sued over new rule to rein in 'rogue' DAs by allowing him access to their case records

Five Texas district attorneys are suing state Attorney General Ken Paxton, challenging new rules that would give his office broad authority to access their office’s case records, according to a new report. 

In the two lawsuits filed on Friday, the district attorneys said the rule, in effect since April, is an unconstitutional overreach that violates the separation of powers and would impose unnecessary burdens on county prosecutors, The Texas Tribune reported.

District attorneys in Dallas, Bexar and Harris counties filed one lawsuit while district attorneys in Travis and El Paso counties filed another. Both lawsuits seek to block Paxton from enforcing the rule, arguing that it violates the state constitution and federal law.

The rule created by Paxton’s office applies to counties with at least 400,000 residents, impacting only 13 of Texas’ 254 counties, The Texas Tribune reported. It requires district attorneys to provide all documents or communications produced or received by their offices, including confidential information.

TEXAS GOV. ABBOTT SIGNS $1 BILLION VOUCHER PROGRAM INTO LAW, CAPPING OFF WIN FOR SCHOOL CHOICE ADVOCATES

Advertisement

Five Texas district attorneys are suing state Attorney General Ken Paxton over a new rule that would require them to give Paxton meticulous access to their office’s case records. ((AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

All documents, correspondence and handwritten notes relevant to a case can be subject to review, according to the outlet. Counties must also submit quarterly reports to the attorney general on twelve different subjects, including specific information on indictments of police officers and the number of times indictments were issued for election code violations. Information on internal policies and how funds obtained through civil forfeiture are spent would also need to be turned over under the new rule.

Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot described the rules as a violation of the separation of powers between the executive branch and the judicial branch.

“To make matters worse, the rule’s extremely burdensome reporting requirements will cause district attorneys’ offices to divert resources and staff away from core prosecutorial roles and responsibilities, which harms public safety and the administration of justice,” Creuzot said in a statement. “And it will cost Dallas County taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to pay for the technology and resources needed to identify and produce all the responsive information under these unnecessary reporting requirements.”

Texas AG Ken Paxton

In the two lawsuits, the district attorneys said the rule is an unconstitutional overreach that violates the separation of powers and would needlessly burden offices. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

“AG Paxton should be working with all district and county attorneys in pursuit of justice, not picking fights with the Democrats in large cities,” Creuzot added.

Advertisement

Paxton’s office has claimed the provision is a way to “rein in rogue district attorneys” allegedly refusing to uphold the law. District attorneys that do not comply with the reporting rule could be charged with official misconduct and removed from office.

“District and County Attorneys have a duty to protect the communities they serve by upholding the law and vigorously prosecuting dangerous criminals,” Paxton said in March. “In many major counties, the people responsible for safeguarding millions of Texans have instead endangered lives by refusing to prosecute criminals and allowing violent offenders to terrorize law-abiding Texans. This rule will enable citizens to hold rogue DAs accountable.”

JASMINE CROCKETT ACCUSED OF ‘ABUSING HER POWER’ AT AIRPORT BOARDING GATE

AG Ken Paxton

Paxton’s office has claimed the provision is a way to “rein in rogue district attorneys” refusing to uphold the law. (Dylan Hollingsworth/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In response to the lawsuits, Paxton said Friday that it “is no surprise that rogue DAs who would rather turn violent criminals loose on the streets than do their jobs are afraid of transparency and accountability.”

Advertisement

“My DA reporting rule is a simple, straightforward, common-sense measure that will shed light on local officials who are abdicating their responsibility to public safety. This lawsuit is meritless and merely a sad, desperate attempt to conceal information from the public they were sworn to protect,” he continued.

The two lawsuits claim Paxton’s office does not have the sweeping jurisdiction the rule creates, and that providing the information requested would be expensive and illegal, according to The Texas Tribune. The lawsuits claim the rule seeks to achieve a political objective by burdening officials and creating strict consequences for noncompliance.

Continue Reading

Politics

Bruce Springsteen speaks out on Trump again: 'They're persecuting people for their right to free speech'

Published

on

Bruce Springsteen speaks out on Trump again: 'They're persecuting people for their right to free speech'

The beef is building between Bruce Springsteen and President Trump.

The Boss did not back down on his fiery rhetoric against Trump on the second night of his “Land of Hopes and Dreams” tour in Manchester, England, on Saturday — a day after Trump lashed out against the legendary singer on Truth Social, calling him an “obnoxious jerk,” a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker,” and writing that he should “keep his mouth shut.”

Springsteen didn’t oblige. In a resolute three-minute speech from the Co-op Live venue, Springsteen thanked his cheering audience for indulging him in a speech about the state of America: “Things are happening right now that are altering the very nature of our country’s democracy, and they’re too important to ignore.”

He then repeated many of the lines that he used during his first Manchester show — the same words that upset Trump to begin with, including the administration defunding American universities, the rolling back of civil rights legislation and siding with dictators, “against those who are struggling for their freedoms.”

Trump’s Truth Social post contained what appeared to be a threat, writing of Springsteen, “We’ll see how it goes for him,” when he gets back to the country. This did not dissuade the “Born in the USA” singer.

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

“In my home, they’re persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That’s happening now,” Springsteen said. “In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. That’s happening now. In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers.”

In a steady voice, he listed the many concerns of those who oppose Trump, his enablers and his policies.

Advertisement

“They are removing residents off American streets without due process of law and deploying them to foreign detention centers as prisoners. That’s happening now. The majority of our elected representatives have utterly failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government,” Springsteen said as the crowd applauded and yelled its support. “They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American.”

He finished on a positive note.

“The America I’ve sung to you about for 50 years is real, and regardless of its many faults, it’s a great country with a great people, and we will survive this moment. Well, I have hope, because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, ‘In this world, there isn’t as much humanity as one would like, but there’s enough.’ ”

Springsteen has long been a vocal critic of Trump, and campaigned for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Trump is known for his angry diatribes against celebrities who criticize him, including Taylor Swift and Robert DeNiro.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending