LGBT advocates oppose Army pick
Group ‘deeply concerned’ with nomination of Green for secretary position
NASHVILLE - Advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender service members have flagged President Donald Trump’s expected nomination of Tennessee state Sen. Mark Green, R- Clarksville, as secretary of the Army, saying they are “deeply concerned” about the selection because of his legislative record.
The American Military Partner Association, the nation’s largest organization of LGBT military families and allies, announced opposition to a Green nomination in a statement Tuesday, pointing to legislation sponsored by Green they argue would single out LGBT people and their families for discrimination.
If appointed by the Senate, the group noted, Green would replace Obama appointee Eric Fanning, the first openly gay secretary of the Army.
“We are deeply concerned over reports that Mark Green will be nominated as secretary of the Army,” AMPA President Ashley Broadway-Mack said in a statement. “Green has made a shameful political career out of targeting LGBT people for discrimination.
“All soldiers and their families, including those who are LGBT, should have confidence that the secretary of the Army has their back and is working for their best interest. Unfortunately, based on his vicious, anti-LGBT record, Mark Green cannot be trusted to ensure all those who serve have the support they need and deserve.”
Green could not be reached for a response.
The Tennessean, citing a source familiar with the decision, reported last weekend that Trump had chosen Green, a former Army officer, West Point graduate and surgeon, as his Army secretary nominee.
It’s unclear when a formal announcement is planned.
The LGBT military group has taken exception to a bill sponsored by Green this year that would prevent local governments from taking “discriminatory action” against a company based on the company’s internal policies related to personnel or employee benefits. This could include either not contracting with a vendor or canceling a current contract.
Hence, a local government would be blocked from ending a contract with a company for the sole reason that it did not have employee protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender workers, for example.
Though the legislation passed in the Senate, the bill did not advance in the House and is dead for the year.