Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has been one of the chief opponents of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, having attempted — and failed — to delay the process by requiring the service chiefs to approve the repeal. He has also said the military “isn’t the YMCA” and that he didn’t trust the president, Secretary of Defense, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make such a decision for the military. His latest effort to obstruct the repeal outdoes all his previous attempts, directly insulting the military’s integrity and contradicting the very “unit cohesion” argument that was used to oppose repeal. Here’s the text of the bill:

To amend Public Law 111-321 (Dont’ Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010) to require that… members of the Armed Forces are not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the members.

Hereby dubbed the “Don’t Pressure Me!” bill, Hunter is attempting to defend troops’ right to be homophobic to their fellow servicemembers. It’s unclear if this bill somehow targets the trainings associated with DADT repeal or if it’s merely meant to symbolically enshrine disapproval of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals into United States Code. Either way, such a policy would negatively impact unit cohesion, making it difficult for commanding officers to resolve disputes and putting LGB servicemembers at greater risk for abuse and discrimination. It’s unclear how a policy of “not pressuring” would even be enforced.

Hunter seems willing to go to any length to ensure that people can be homophobic without repercussion. One wonders why he thinks it’s so important to protect such negative viewpoints, particularly when being out actually has positive impacts on teamwork and productivity. If anything, it’s clear that the success of the military is not his top priority — it’s discriminating against gays.

Today, the Log Cabin Republicans’ case against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell continues with oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Though DADT will officially be repealed 19 days from now, the case is still important for determining the constitutionality of the law. Tom Carpenter at LGBTPOV explains:

Judge Phillip’s decision had two parts. The first awarded declaratory relief, ruling that DADT infringed on the fundamental rights of current and prospective service members and violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights and their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and petition.

The second part awarded injunctive relief, enjoining the government from enforcing or applying DADT and its implementing regulations, and ordering the government to suspend and discontinue investigations and discharge proceedings.

Lawyers for the Log Cabin Republicans will likely agree with the government that when repeal is finally in place, the second part of the decision will be moot, meaning “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” However, the first part of the decision, finding the law unconstitutional, is not.

Given that several Republican presidential candidates — most recently Michele Bachmann — have called for the reinstatement of the discriminatory military policy, its constitutionality could have significance beyond its repeal Sept. 20. Metro Weekly has provided a FAQ on the case and the complicated course it has followed. Stay tuned for updates on today’s proceedings.

Cheryl Kilodavis wrote "My Princess Boy," about her son Dyson, who enjoys wearing dresses.

Last night, ABC’s Primetime Nightline ran an hour-long special on transgender identities, focusing in particular on the experiences of transgender young people. Overall, the special was positive and affirming, but it also fell into some journalistic traps and missed some important opportunities to highlight challenges the transgender community faces. Here are five critiques of last night’s special:

1. FALSE BALANCE: One of the five segments focused on an adult individual named Charles Kane, who transitioned to female and then back to male. Claiming that he regrets his transition, he had disparaging things to say about the transgender experience, including calling puberty blockers for young trans people “brainwashing.” His experiences are unfortunate, but not representative, and he has absolutely no expertise in transgender health to be critiquing other people’s transitions. His inclusion was unnecessary, irrelevant, and represented false balance .

2. ABSENCE OF ADULT ROLE MODELS: Kane was the only trans adult featured in the special and his was a negative experience. In highlighting the transition process, Nightline should have showcased the many transgender people who have successfully transitioned and are leading happy healthy lives to show what future these young people have to look forward to. Instead, the audience is left with lingering doubt that they’ll all regret being authentic with their gender identities.

3. SENSATIONALISM: Reporter Cynthia McFadden would not stop asking every trans person she interviewed about their genitalia. The experience of a transgender identity is so much more than whether an individual has had sexual reassignment surgery (SRS), let alone how their new genitalia might work. In fact, many transgender people do not pursue surgical options at all. All of the time spent on McFadden’s penis questions could have been used to better highlight the important psychological benefits of affirming an individual’s gender identity.

4. NO DISCUSSION OF HEALTH CARE LIMITATIONS FOR TRANS PEOPLE: Vanessa’s story of turning to prostitution to pay for her surgeries with a wad of cash in Mexico was a lost opportunity to discuss the health iniquities trans people face. One of the interviewed experts mentioned in passing that the community struggles with high levels of suicide risk because of mental health issues related to transitioning and anti-trans stigma, but the special neglected to discuss the complete lack of health coverage many trans people face, such as insurance providers that don’t cover psychological therapy, hormone treatment, or SRS.

5. NO DISCUSSION OF TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT OR COMMUNITY: An audience member unfamiliar with the transgender community might think that all of these young people are heading out into the world alone. The special didn’t discuss the larger transgender community at all, let alone the many resources available for young trans people and their families, nor did it mention the organizations working across the country to advance transgender equality.

Despite these critiques, the special still showcased some very positive portrayals of young trans people and the transition process. Hopefully, people who watch the special appreciate the importance of that affirmation. Watch the special on hulu:

In an interview that aired on CNN last night, Piers Morgan pressed Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on his views opposing marriage equality, including his suggestion of a gay “jihad” against him. Santorum tried to avoid answering whether he believes homosexuality is a sin, but confirmed that as a Catholic, he subscribes to the Catholic Church’s teachings that indeed it is a sin. Asked how he would respond if one of his sons came out, Santorum said he would be supportive of what he sees as a “very difficult and troubling time in their life,” going on to say he “knows a lot of gay people” and some of them continue to “struggle” even after coming out and “admitting” their identities.

Morgan responded by pointing out that many people struggle coming out because of bigotry in society, and suggested that Santorum’s views “border on bigotry.” The former Senator did not take kindly to this:

SANTORUM: I think just because we disagree on public policy, which is what the debate has been about — which is marriage — doesn’t mean that it’s bigotry. Just because you follow a moral code that teaches that something’s wrong doesn’t mean that — are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted? If that’s what you believe, fine. [...] Well, I shouldn’t say — not fine. I don’t think it’s fine at all. I think that is contrary to both what we’ve seen in 2,000 years of human history and Western civilization, and trying to redefine something that has been — that is — seen as wrong…I think is in itself an act of bigotry.

Watch the full exchange:

Because the word “bigot” is being tossed around, here is the definition: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion” or “a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own, especially on religion, politics, or race.” Given Santorum’s eager propensity to demonize gays and lesbians and use the law to restrict their rights, it is hard to argue he isn’t intolerant. Still, calling someone a “bigot” doesn’t seem to accomplish much except shutting down the conversation.