Hypocrisy alert: Thrice married Newt upset about Prop. 8 decision

I have to give Newt the award for chutzpah, so far anyway. He's really upset about the Prop. 8 decision and worried about is impact on marriage:

Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.

For Newt, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. Then, one man and another woman. Then, one man and a third woman.

How about we change the law to make marriage the union of one man and one woman ONLY?

Seriously, what a hypocrite.

Via Newt's wikipedia page:

Gingrich has been married three times. He first married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.[55][56] They had two daughters. Gingrich left Battley in the spring of 1980. According to Battley, Gingrich visited her later that year while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after it was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981.[57][58]

Gingrich began an affair with Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior, in the mid nineties, which continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal.[59] In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce with second wife Ginther was finalized. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia.[60]

Read More...

Reactions to the historic Prop. 8 decision -- with updates

First, the most important reaction we won't hear is from President Obama. That has to change. Please sign our open letter to President Obama asking him to come out in support of full marriage equality. It's time.

[UPDATE, via Kerry Eleveld, the White House did put out a statement:

“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

Note to White House: Obama can promote LGBT equality by supporting marriage and by ending the defense of DOMA and DADT in courts.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Wow, really? Did the White House just say that they agreed with the federal court's reasoning that "no rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Really? I doubt it. I think the White House just tried to have its cake and eat it too - sound supportive, but not dare embrace the decision itself. But now that they've weighed in, and tried to make it look like they're on our side in this case - they are such great self-proclaimed champions of LGBT equality, they'd have you remember - it's time for the White House to answer the question, do they agree with the ruling or not? Maybe you should sign our open letter to the President and ask him.]

We're getting a ton of statements via email. Here's a sampling. We'll keep adding to it. Also, the decision has been stayed until August 6th, via Lisa Keen.

Ted Olson:

"We came to court to seek for Kris, Sandy, Paul and Jeff the same right to marry that all other Americans enjoy, and to ensure that they receive equal protection under the law as guaranteed to every American by the Constitution. Through its decision today, the court has acted in the best traditions of a legal system established to uphold the Constitution and the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded. On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally."

David Boies:

“The Supreme Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and this ruling affirms that universal right of every American. Depriving the fundamental right to marry causes grievous harm to millions of Americans and their children.”

Governor Schwarzenegger, who is the defendant in the case, but didn't defend it. (Meaning we need to make sure that Jerry Brown is elected Governor. GOPer Meg Whitman supported Prop. 8):

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.'

Congressman Paul Hodes (also a candidate for Senate in New Hampshire):

The U.S. District Court of Northern California's decision to strike down Proposition 8 is a huge win in our ongoing fight for equality.

There is much work still to be done, and many more battles to face – but the march toward universal marriage equality continues. It's time that the Defense of Marriage Act was repealed once and for all. When I get to the US Senate, I will lead the charge to repeal DOMA and ensure equal rights and protections for every citizen in this country.

I am thrilled with today’s ruling, and more determined than ever to repeal DOMA and help achieve universal marriage equality for all Americans.

Activist Charlene Strong:

“Today’s ruling is very good news. LGBT rights are not special rights. These are human rights. Anyone who says otherwise, that all citizens are not entitled full equality in our country is speaking from their own personal bias and nothing more. This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with who you love.... I am an American and I am proud of that. I am not fighting for my rights alone -- I am standing up and fighting for every gay and lesbian couple who pay their taxes, contribute to society and who want the same protections every other American is afforded if and when they choose to marry."

Rick Jacobs from the Courage Campaign:

"This ruling is an historic milestone for millions of loving families, for all who have fought to realize the dream of equality under the law, and for our nation as a whole. While today concludes the first step in a legal process that could take up to two years, Judge Walker's ruling is a landmark victory in America's centuries long war against discrimination, and the result of months of extraordinary work by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, and courageous plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo."

Former White House Chief of Staff, now President of the Center for American Progress (CAP) John Podesta:

"Judge Walker’s decision reaffirms the Constitution’s command that all Americans must receive ‘equal protection of the laws.’ Prop 8 is incompatible with our Constitution and a long line of precedent rejecting laws that single out a certain class of Americans for disfavored legal status. Today’s decision does nothing more than restore the Constitution’s promise to millions of American couples. Because Constitutional precedent so clearly rejects Prop 8, I have every confidence that this decision will be upheld on appeal."

Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry:

"Today's federal ruling strikes down a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should never have become law and affirms that the freedom to marry belongs to every American. As the first court to strike down race restrictions on marriage said in 1948, "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." There is no gay exception in the Constitution to personal choice and the right to marry, and there is no good reason to continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

Judge Walker's decision will be appealed and litigation will continue, but what we witnessed in the clear light of his courtroom cannot be erased.

Judy Shepard:

After Matt came out to me, he once asked me if I thought gay couples would ever be allowed to get married. I told him I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime, but it probably would in his. It's so sad, and ironic, that it turned out the other way. But this case warms my heart, to think that his dream is still coming true.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (who, though straight, is the best LGBT member of Congress:

“Today’s court ruling on Proposition 8 is a powerful declaration for those of us who believe in equal protection for all Americans. This affirmation of marriage equality in our nation’s most populous state shows, once again, that laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying serve no legitimate purpose, and that efforts to deprive gay men and lesbians of fundamental rights and to single them out for discrimination are anathema to our constitutional system. As Judge Walker recognized, like opposite-sex couples, ‘same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners . . . . love [does] not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.’ I join Californians in celebrating this victory, and urge passage of my legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act, in order to provide all legally married Americans and their families the full measure of protections and obligations of federal law.”

DNC Chair Tim Kaine:

I applaud the U.S. District Court’s ruling today striking down Proposition 8 in California. The Democratic Party opposes attempts to discriminatorily limit rights granted to Americans, and Proposition 8 was just such an attempt. Discrimination against same-sex couples should not be added to constitutions – which are documents meant fundamentally to protect citizens against discrimination. As a former civil rights attorney, it pleases me to see this principle upheld and to see America take another step in the march towards greater equality.

Statements from the Task Force is here. HRC's is here. Read More...

BREAKING: Prop. 8 is unconstitutional

(Please sign our open letter to President Obama asking him to come out in support of full marriage equality.)

A victory for equality today. Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violates the due process and equal protections clauses of Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Walker stated that strict scrutiny should be applied when sexual orientation is implicated, but that Prop. 8 failed on the rational basis test (the lowest standard of review, which is the same standard used by Judge Trauro to declare DOMA unconstitutional.)

More details as they unfold.

We know one thing for sure: We're heading to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here's Judge Walker's conclusion:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The Judge did not issue a stay, as requested by the anti-gay forces. In the remedies, Judge Walker enjoined enforcement of Prop. 8:

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

The decision has been posted at Scribd.com
FF_&_CL_FINAL Read More...

GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirks' ex-wife gives weird answer to question whether Kirk is gay

Chicago Magazine:

CF: What about the rumors that Mark Kirk is gay?

KV: That’s been going on since he first ran. It’s highly unusual for a man to have been married to a woman for eight years and not produced children. And it’s unusual for a man to have not been married until he’s 40 years old. [Kirk was 41]. So people get suspicious. It’s human nature. When we don’t understand something, we want to attach an explanation to it. It’s not an accurate explanation that Mark is gay, but nevertheless, that’s how some people choose to reconcile it.

It's not an accurate explanation? Weird way to deny your ex is gay. How about, he's not gay. It's not an accurate explanation? Try this. Ask your wife, husband, father, mother, child - anyone you know who is straight - if they're gay. See if any of them - any of them - respond with "it's not an accurate explanation." I'm gonna bet the house that no one does.

So is she suggesting he's bisexual? Chicago Magazine took this as a denial. It's not quite a denial actually. It sounds like she's hedging. Read More...

Groups try to block GOP efforts to kill or weaken DADT legislation

Last night, The Hill reported on the SLDN/HRC lobbying effort on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We wrote about that campaign here.

Included in the article is more background on the expected efforts by Republicans to kill DADT repeal. The danger comes from a potential amendment to expand the already complicated certification process:

Senate Republicans, backed by Armed Services ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.), are eyeing a provision that would require all service chiefs to certify that a repeal can be implemented consistent with those military standards listed above.

The way the congressional provisions are written now, only Obama, Gates and Mullen have to provide that certification.

In letters solicited by McCain, the service chiefs in May said they wanted Congress to delay voting on the issue until Dec. 1, after the Pentagon finishes a review of how the military should carry out the changes.

One problem would be that change to the certification language. It would mean that seven people get to sign off on the certification instead of the three initially proposed by the Center for American Progress' Winnie Stachelberg, who took full credit for developing the certification compromise. It's our understanding that she worked with Jim Messina on that language. Of course, what we're seeing now is that Stachelberg created an opportunity for opponents of repeal. (It's still not clear how Winnie Stachelberg, who has no LGBT constituency, managed to insert herself into this process.) If this thing fails, she owns a lot of the blame. Imagine if the President had actually lobbied for the initial repeal language -- for an actual repeal of DADT, which this proposal does not guarantee -- even making one or two phone calls to key Senators could have made all the difference. But, no. Messina and Stachelberg negotiated with themselves, and came up with a proposal that doesn't even require a full repeal to ever happen. And, the LGBT groups, including those that represent servicemembers, were presented with the compromise as a fait accompli.

This same article explains the perils that lie ahead:

Gay-rights groups argue that the Republicans’ proposal to include the service chiefs in the certification process would be “a killer amendment” that would delay a repeal of “Don’t ask” for years.

Supporters of repeal are fighting any efforts to change the existing provision in the Senate. They want to make sure it is similar to the one passed in the House so that it does not become an item of negotiation between the two chambers when they write the final defense authorization bill, Sarvis explained.

So, the potential amendment to the Stachelberg certification language will 1) either delay repeal for years, or 2) make the DADT repeal language a subject that can be debated in conference, where advocates for repeal will be outnumbered by foes of repeal.

And now there's growing concern that the Senate won't take up the Defense authorization bill in September, leaving it until the lame duck session. That doesn't bode well for us, since the Democrats have a history of avoiding "controversial" legislation during lame duck sessions -- DADT repeal isn't controversial anywhere but in Washington DC, it polls around 70% in practically every poll. And if they don't take DADT up now or during the lame duck session, there's concern that after the mid-term elections this November Democrats won't touch our issues for years to come.

If we're going to get the repeal done this year -- or get the current compromise, which isn't great, but it's all we've got -- the President is going to have to become engaged. Very engaged. Read More...

What to Expect from Judge Walker's Decision

I'm in San Francisco, and this afternoon - literally one block between my office and my apartment - Judge Vaughn Walker will issue his verdict in the Prop 8 case. Frankly, everyone expects him to overrule Prop 8. As anyone who watched the trial (and the Courage Campaign did a great job tracking it, the opposition's case was a sham.

But our opponents knew it all along. Even before the first day of trial in January, Brian Brown of NOM sent out an e-mail which said: "We do not expect to win at the trial level. But with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.” So this is all about what will happen on appeal.

Judge Walker's decision, however, will be important to check out - because we want to see: (a) will he overrule Prop 8 on rational basis grounds (similar to what a Judge recently did with DOMA), or (b) will he take it a step further - like the California, Connecticut & Iowa Supreme Courts have done - and argue that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" that entitles strict scrutiny that discriminates against us? That would be a tougher hurdle for the opposition to reverse on appeal, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed today to see if that happens ... Read More...

Cenk Uygur takes on the right-wing hysteria over same-sex marriage.

As we prepare for the Prop. 8 decision, Lisa Keen reports that the right-wingers are already asking for a stay of Judge Walker's ruling.

On MSNBC, Cenk Uygur talked gay marriage. It's good stuff to rebut the hysteria we can expect from the haters if the decision goes our way:

Pass the "Red Lobster" amendment. Leviticus demands it.

H/T Joe.My.God. Read More...

What will the Obama administration say about the Prop. 8 decision?

In the wake of the loss on Prop. 8, Obama chose Rick Warren as a speaker at his inauguration. That was a real indication that Team Obama was oblivious to the concerns of the LGBT community. And, it hasn't changed much.

Today, Judge Walker will issue his decision on Prop. 8. What will the President's team have to say about it? Anything? Today's Prop. 8 decision will give the Obama administration the opportunity to speak out for equality for all Americans. Don't hold your breath. If this case gets to the Supreme Court, the Obama administration's Solicitor General should weigh in given the constitutional implications. So, we may get some indication in a couple years.

We may not get a comment about this Prop. 8 decision anytime soon, but the White House is going to have to address the constitutionality of DOMA sometime soon.

Last Thursday, Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, had an opportunity to address DOMA. As usual, he punted. At the press briefing, Kerry Eleveld asked Gibbs about DOMA, which was recently found unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts:

The Advocate: A growing number of people have started to call on the administration not to defend what the president refers to as the "so-called" Defense of Marriage Act - including Steve Hildebrand last week and the Human Rights Campaign, which is the largest LGBT community lobby and, quite frankly, it's usually fairly favorable toward the administration, so it was a turnaround for them to call on the administration not to defend that law.

The president has called DOMA discriminatory. Does the president believe that a discriminatory law is constitutional?

Robert Gibbs: I don't... the president hasn't to the best of my... I have not heard the president intone what he believes the constitutionality of the law is. I know that he believes the law should be changed.

Legal decisions around next steps in that case, I believe, will be made at the Justice Department and I would point you over there to them.

Again, the president believes, in this case, and the president believes in the case of "don't ask, don't tell" that those are laws that he has believed for quite some time should be changed.

We tried to get this question answered at the White House briefing for LGBT media, too.

Obama taught constitutional law. He must have an opinion as to whether DOMA is constitutional.

The Obama administration has aggressively defended DOMA and DADT in court. Now, a federal judge in Massachusetts has declared DOMA is unconstitutional. So, we will know soon how this administration views equality. After the decision in the Massachusetts DOMA case is entered, Obama's Department of Justice will have 60 days to decide whether to appeal that ruling. The DOJ's lawyers will have to argue that DOMA is constitutional in order to appeal it. Is that Obama's position?

To be clear, the DOJ does not have to appeal the DOMA decision. But, we'll hear their flaks say they do. The DOJ did not have to defend DOMA or DADT either. Although, we heard from all of the Obama apologists (mostly lobbyists and people who want jobs) that they had to.

Pam Spaulding celebrated her sixth wedding anniversary this past weekend. She wrote an excellent post asking why her marriage isn't recognized in all 50 states hits all the key points:

Kate and I married on July 1, 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. At that time it was the only place we could legally marry in North America. Today, our marriage is recognized in a few states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.; the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants same-sex marriage. New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages, but they are not granted.

And then of course, you have the perversion of separate-allegedly-equal civil unions and domestic partnerships, which in theory gives couples (from the perspective of state government) equal legal recognition.

DOMA is clearly unconstitutional from a common sense perspective -- there is no sane justification for the fact that when Kate and I get on a plane and fly to New York that we're married, and when we return to North Carolina we're not. My state fortunately has not passed a marriage amendment; it does have a state DOMA to ensure our union is not recognized.

Yet my state-issued drivers license is valid in all 50 states. What's the difference? It's really that simple - we're talking about the culture of marriage, the heterosupremacy, the church/state conflation of marriage. It does NOT help that in the White House sits a president who is a constitutional scholar bleating that "God is in the mix" and that marriage is between a man and a woman. I really don't care about the political "safety" about this position at this date and time. It's an absurd position that only underscore what we've seen occur over and over -- the LGBT community is tossed overboard when it comes to civil rights. The stated positions of this administration always default to pandering toward the bigots, even when those positions fly in the face of common sense. It's quite sad.

It is quite sad. And, it's going to be a major political problem if the Obama administration is defending unconstitutional and discriminatory laws while running for reelection. Read More...

Rallies planned all over the country in anticipation of Prop 8 decision today

Rex Wockner has the list. Read More...

Gays on a train!

Read More...

Judge Walker will issue Prop. 8 decision tomorrow

UPDATE: Various sources are reporting the decision will be issued between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM Pacific time.
_____________
Tomorrow will be a big news day for everyone who cares about equality. Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will be issuing his decision in the Prop. 8 case. Via the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The federal court announced today that it will release its decision in the American Foundation for Equal Right’s landmark case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, on Wednesday. Text “EQUAL” to 69866 to get a text message with the official decision on your mobile phone the moment the court releases its decision, or sign-up for an email alert at equalrightsfoundation.org. Join AFER on its Web site to watch a live press conference with our plaintiffs and co-counsels Ted Olson and David Boies following the release of the decision.

And, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

A federal judge in San Francisco will rule Wednesday on the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, court officials announced today.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will decide whether Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violated gays' and lesbians' right of equality under the U.S. Constitution.

We'll be waiting, watching and writing. Read More...

The DNC did a video about us. Forget about repealing DADT and DOMA, and passing ENDA. They did a video!

Yes, the DNC did a video about us. All about us. And if it were 1985, we'd be on our knees thanking them for acknowledging our pathetic existence. But since it's 2010, it's not enough for the Democrats to keep doing these very public but very lacking in substance efforts to buy off our money and our votes.

I've made the comparison to high school before. And how when we were all insecure children, we practically waited on pins and needles for that one moment in the hallway when one of the popular kids might look our way and smile, or maybe even said "hi."

But we're not pathetic kids anymore. And doing a video about us, showing up at some organization's dinner, or throwing us a cocktail party in the White House isn't going to cut it anymore. We no longer feel the overwhelming need to be accepted into the cool kids club. We are the cool kids now. Our community has the money, the votes, the power. We are a key constituency of the Democratic party, and you'd better damn well be wooing us, because you need us. And we've finally come to realize that point. YOU need US.

That's why another sweet-nothing, which this video is, is not going to cut it. Truman didn't do a video instead of integrating the military. Johnson didn't do a video instead of getting the Civil Rights Act passed. This little YouTube isn't going to get Dan Choi his job back. It's not going to help the lesbian fired from her job. It's not going to let gay couples finally marry like everyone else. The President didn't promise us videos and dinner appearances. He didn't promise an administrative fix to hospital visitation rights that will go away the next time a Republican president takes office along with those "new" benefits for gay federal employees that we found out weren't new at all, and in fact, gay federal employees have been getting since the Clinton era. The President promised us the repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA.

So where are they?

When you come up with that video, the one telling us you repealed DADT and DOMA, and passed ENDA, get back to us.

PS And please don't claim credit for DADT when the legislation currently being discussed doesn't even repeal the law, doesn't require a repeal in the future, doesn't mandate what is to replace DADT if it is ever repealed, and in fact gives DOD 2 votes to the White House's 1 vote for repeal. When you can tell us the discharges have stopped - when you can tell us WHEN the discharges will even stop - then get back to us. Read More...

Gays in Brazil can file taxes jointly

We're number one!

From O Globo in Brazil:

Casais homossexuais poderão declarar o companheiro ou companheira como dependente do Imposto de Renda (IR), desde que cumpram os mesmos requisitos estabelecidos pela lei para os heterossexuais com união estável, como vida em comum por cinco anos. A Receita Federal poderá notificar o contribuinte para verificar a informação.

I speak Spanish, and studied a bit of Portuguese, so I'll give you a good, but less than perfect, translation. Actually, I just went to Google Translate, and it did a shockingly good job. So here's its translation, with my tweeks:

Gay couples can declare their partner as a dependent on their income tax (IR), provided they meet the same requirements established by law for heterosexuals (such as living together for five years). The IRS may notify the taxpayer to verify the information.

Read More...

Dissecting a Family Research Council lie

I've been following the far-right Family Research Council since 1993, when I did an extensive review of their documents dealing with DADT. It's safe to say that most, if not all, of their footnotes in their "studies" of DADT at the time were wrong in some way. They're really quite good at claiming something, then linking to a "source" that says nothing of the kind.

Oh, and they're doing it again. This time, they're trying to claim that an "extreme homosexual activist" is responsible for the wikileaks scandal. Let me share the second and third paragraph from the FRC story, and then show you how their sourcing is a total lie - this is what they do, all the time. I'm not going to link to the FRC story, because they don't deserve the traffic:

In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated. It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist, whose fury over the services' homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars. According to the U.K.'s Telegraph, Manning has an extensive history of campaigning for gay, lesbian, and transgendered causes and sources say he may have even been considering a sex change when he leaked military secrets on the Internet.

Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with "flaunting" his sexuality when DADT is still in effect. "Was Manning given a pass because his 'lifestyle' was...acceptable under the Obama administration?" Cliff Kincaid asks. If so, then Manning's sedition may have given opponents of the repeal all the ammunition they need to kill the idea. Obviously, the Pentagon's "relaxed enforcement" of DADT is putting the entire United States military is at risk of losing thousands of lives and the war. "The revelations of Manning's openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way," Kincaid writes.

Okay, first, Manning is allegedly found out to be an "extreme homosexual activist." Really? Any proof? No. FRC cites the Telegraph, and claims that the Telegraph says Manning has an "extensive history" of campaigning for gay rights. In fact, the Telegraph article mentions that Manning once showed up at a single gay rights rally - that's it. How is that an "extensive" history as an "extreme" gay activist? It's not. Of course, if you don't click through to the source, you'll never know that the FRC is lying about what the source actually says. That's a usual move of theirs.

Also typical, and a rather brilliant bit of deception (that FRC has also done before), is how they pretend to give you the source for an assertion, but really don't.

Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with "flaunting" his sexuality when DADT is still in effect. "Was Manning given a pass because his 'lifestyle' was...acceptable under the Obama administration?" Cliff Kincaid asks.

Now, anyone reading this story would think that Cliff Kincaid was the British paper source questioning how Manning got away "flaunting" his sexuality. In fact, Cliff Kincaid is an American far-right activist. The sentence is a non sequitor intended, it would appear, to make you think that Kincaid is the proof behind the previous assertion, when he's not.

In fact, nowhere in the single British press article that FRC cites is anything said about Manning "flaunting" his homosexuality - note how FRC even quotes the word, to give the impression that it's a real quote from the British press. Nor is there anything in the British article asking how Manning "got away" with being gay in the military, even though FRC claims it's there. But again, if you don't click through to the original source, you'll believe FRC's bigoted slander on its face.

Finally, there's nothing, anywhere, to suggest that Manning had any "fury" over DADT, or that, even if he did, such fury led him to leak the documents. Where did FRC come up with it? Probably the same place they came up with the suggestion that Manning was considering a sex change. (Note how the sex change allegation is thrown in the same sentence talking about the UK paper, again suggesting that the UK paper is the one reporting on the sex change allegation, to give it more credence, even though the paper mentions nothing of the kind.)

If we're going to play that game, I have sources who think that FRC's President, Tony Perkins, may be a closeted homosexual because he's so fey on TV. Does that make it true, does it mean Perkins is really gay? In this case, the sources are simply my friends who think Perkins talks and looks really gay. (And he does talk and look really gay, in my opinion.) But you don't see me writing stories exposing Tony Perkins as a closeted gay man, based on secret sources. Yet, you do see FRC throwing around the notion of a possible sex change when they don't even bother citing their sources. And let's face it, even when FRC does cite its sources, the sourcing is often pretty bad. So imagine how good it is when they refuse to cite the source.

UPDATE: I see Alvin caught this too. Read More...

Senator Ensign, under criminal investigation over affair with staffer, may try to block DADT repeal

We learned two things about ethically-challenged Senator John Ensign last week.

Via Chris Johnson, Ensign is prepared to fight against the compromise DADT repeal language:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) last week expressed unease about language in pending defense budget legislation that would lead to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and said he would consider supporting measures to stop the Senate from passing the provision.

In a brief exchange on Capitol Hill, Ensign told the Blade he shared the views of the military service chiefs, who, prior to earlier congressional action this year on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” wrote to lawmakers to express concern about the action they were taking.

“The problem is you can’t go out and say to the military chiefs, ‘We’re going to survey you and see what you all think,’ and then you pass the bill to repeal it,” Ensign said. “So the study should come first and then you can talk about the repeal or not of ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell']. So, yes, it is a concern simply because the study’s not done.”

That's no surprise. He's a typical GOP homophobe.

But, let's not forget that Ensign is facing a criminal investigation stemming from the fallout from the affair he had with a staffer, Cynthia Hampton. Her husband, Doug, also worked for Ensign. It's tawdry.

So, the other thing we learned is that the full Senate approved a resolution allowing Ensign's staff to testify before the grand jury that's investigating the Senator:

The Senate’s approval of the resolution is the latest sign that the investigation into the senator’s affair – and whether he illegally attempted to cover it up and flouted federal law by helping the lobbying career of his former mistress’ husband – continues to move swiftly. Last week, POLITICO first reported that Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn – Ensign’s former roommate - had given scores of e-mails to federal investigators to assist with their inquiry.

That John Ensign is still in the Senate is an affront. That the big hypocrite is still trying to bash gays is almost comical. I hope he gets jail time. Read More...