Watching Project Runway is one of my guilty pleasures. My favorite PR bloggers, Tom and Lorenzo, are normally apolitical, but they surprised me with their activist awareness in an eloquent smackdown of Jason, a contestant who whined last week about the injustice of being a straight guy "in a gay man's world." Here is their message to him:
Listen, asshole. When you are barred from marrying, adopting children, serving in the military, visiting your spouse in the hospital, or even joining the fucking Boy Scouts, you get the right to whine about how unfair life is. When packs of gay men go around taunting, beating and even killing straight men, you get to whine about how unfair life is. When political parties use you as both a punching bag and a fundraising tool without ever doing anything to improve your lot in life or even ensuring that you have basic civil rights, you get to whine about how unfair life is. When Tim Gunn points out your piece of shit dress is a piece of shit dress, you thank him for the critique, get back to work, and try to salvage the mess you made.
Spot on. And they were right about the dress, too. It was terrible.
Read More...
More on Lt. Col Fehrenbach's legal effort to block his imminent DADT discharge from the Air Force via Julie Bolcer at The Advocate:
Although limited to Fehrenbach at this time, how the court responds to the request filed Wednesday could shape subsequent legal efforts to end the policy.
“The emergency temporary restraining order applies to Victor directly, but the larger case would apply facially to all of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” said SLDN spokesman Trevor Thomas.
On the political front, the request arrives just weeks before the Senate is expected to vote on the DADT repeal that passed the House in May. The Fehrenbach case illustrates the urgent need for lawmakers to act.
“The discharge of Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach would dramatically underscore that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is still the law and all gay and lesbian service members should be on notice,” said SLDN executive director and Army veteran Aubrey Sarvis. “Clearly there is an urgent need for the Senate to act on legislation currently pending that would allow for repeal.”
Lots of DADT-related activity tonight. As reported in the post below, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach has gone to federal court to prevent his imminent discharge under DADT.
Also, Pam Spaulding is hosting a live chat tonight with Alex Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United, Jarrod Chlapowski, SU's Co-Founder, and "Gordon," a 16-year Marine field grade officer currently assigned within the greater DC Beltway, who actually took the Pentagon's DADT survey. They'll be talking a lot about the survey and, no doubt, other DADT related issues. John and I are big fans of Alex and Jarrod and their work. (If you haven't seen the SU Action Fund's first t.v. ad, it's here.)
Pam's been gracious enough to provide the code so AMERICAblog readers can participate from here.
Via James Dao at The New York Times, a critical move by Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach and his attorneys at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster. Fehrenbach has gone to court to prevent his imminent discharge under DADT:
On Wednesday, Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers filed papers in Idaho federal court requesting a temporary order blocking his discharge. The petition contends that a discharge would violate Colonel Fehrenbach’s rights, cause him irreparable harm and fail to meet standards established in a 2008 federal court ruling on don’t ask, don’t tell.
For advocates of abolishing the ban against gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly, Colonel Fehrenbach’s case has become something of a line in the sand. Though President Obama has called for ending the ban and Congress has begun moving in that direction, gay service members continue to face investigations and discharge, albeit at a lower rate than in past years.
Lawyers for Colonel Fehrenbach assert that his case is among the most egregious applications of the policy in their experience. The Air Force investigation into his sexuality began with a complaint from a civilian that was eventually dismissed by the Idaho police and the local prosecutor as unfounded, according to court papers. Colonel Fehrenbach has never publicly said that he is gay.
However, during an interview with an Idaho law enforcement official, he acknowledged having consensual sex with his accuser. Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers say he did not realize Air Force investigators were observing that interview; his admission led the Air Force to open its “don’t ask” investigation.
The request for the TRO was filed this afternoon in Federal Court in Boise, Idaho.
Fehrenbach's legal team is playing hard ball with the the Air Force, the Pentagon and the Obama administration -- and they should. If the TRO isn't granted, Fehrenbach could be discharged any day.
According to the memo accompanying the request, which is posted below, "The Court may issue a TRO to prevent “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage [that] will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard” at a hearing." Victor meets that standard. His discharge is imminent.
Basically, under Air Force regulations, as explained in a footnote to the memo, when a servicemember is told that his case is being decided by the Secretary, it means that the Air Force Personnel Board has recommended a discharge -- and that's what just happened to Fehrenbach. His attorneys were told that his case had been referred to the Secretary's office:
On August 4, 2010, counsel fpr Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was informed that the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) had met and made a recommendation to Secretary Donley’s designee, Mr. Joe Lineberger. (Declaration of M. Andrew Woodmansee in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctipn at ¶ 13.) Pursuant to AFI 36-3206 Chapter 6.10, a recommendation by the AFPB that Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach should be retained would not need to go to the Secretary or his designee for further action. Under Air Force regulations, further action by the Secretary or his designee is required if the AFPB recommended discharge. Woodmansee Decl. at ¶ 13.
Hence, Fehrenbach knows the recommendation is for a discharge. Plus, the Pentagon admitted to the NY Times that "Fehrenbach’s case was under final review by the Air Force secretary." That's why this action was taken today -- to prevent that discharge from happening. It's a ballsy move by Fehrenbach, SLDN and his lawyers. Otherwise, one of these days very soon, Victor would be escorted off his base. (And, I just realized the url for the law firm is mofo.com)
Because this is playing out in Idaho, the higher standards for discharge (laid out by the Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of the Air Force) should control. That works to Fehrenbach's advantage. Also, remember that in March of this year, the Pentagon imposed new "more humane" standards for DADT discharges earlier this year. That should also work to Victor's advantage as he was outed by a third party who wasn't considered credible by local law enforcement authorities.
A Federal District Court Judge in Boise should hear the request on Friday. The Department of Justice will be on the opposing side and will have to argue against issuance of the TRO. Just weeks ago, the DOJ was arguing that the Log Cabin Republican's case against DADT shouldn't move forward because DADT was going to be repealed. Then, why discharge Fehrenbach?
You may recall that last year, at the LGBT cocktail reception on June 29, 2009, while so many of our "leaders" were enjoying their cocktails and reveling in their A-list status, Fehrenbach actually had a very important and substantive conversation with President Obama about his situation. According to Victor, who appeared that same night on Rachel Maddow's show:
[Obama] looked me right in the eye and he said, “We‘re going to get this done.” And then he continued to say, you know, everyone seems to be onboard. We‘ve got about 75 percent of the public that supports this. He said, but we have a generational issue. And so, there is some convincing to do, that there is a generational gap it seems and some of the senior leadership.
Well over a year later, it hasn't been done. And, Victor's lawyers know that his discharge is imminent.
So, this presents a conundrum. DOJ knows that there's a recommendation to discharge Fehrenbach on the desk of the Secretary of the Air Force. If they fight the TRO, Victor will be discharged. But DOJ told another judge that DADT is going to be repealed. So why would they want to lose a decorated war hero?
The next couple days will be very interesting. Can't wait to see how the DOJ responds.
And, while the decision to discharge Fehrenbach is on the desk of the Secretary of the Air Force, it might just as well be on the desk of President Obama, who is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief. The President has stated repeatedly that DADT presents a national security risk -- and he's vowed to end the policy. Obama said to Victor, “We‘re going to get this done.” Now is the time to do it.
I understand we'll see Victor on Rachel Maddow tonight.
Via the NOM Tour Tracker, 18 people showed up to hear Maggie Gallagher in Charlestown, West Virginia. Not even tens of people today. Here's a bit of what Maggie said:
“This is a Judge [Walker] that was biased from the very beginning” Gallagher said. ”He put 7 million Californians on trial. [...] It reads like an activist brief.”
(wink, wink..."biased from the very beginning" is code for: Walker is gay.) She's classy, that Maggie G.
Adam Bink got the report that there were 146 proponents of equality at a counter-rally.
Read More...
In an interview with The Daily Caller, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said he’s actively cultivating donors, staff and supporters so he’ll be in a position to run for president in 2012 as a Republican if he decides to do so by early next year.
“I’m going through the process of what someone who is seriously considering running would do,” Santorum said by phone, “in order for when the time comes to decide, I’m in a position that I have a choice.”
Santorum—who was elected to the Senate in 1994 but left in 2006 after losing his seat—said he plans to make a decision on a presidential bid by either the end of this year, or the beginning of 2011.
Now, Ricky's got some hurdles to overcome. Like the thrashing he took on Election Day in 2006. AMERICAblog did an hour-by-hour countdown til the polls closed at 8:00 in Pennsylvania. Check out our 8:00 PM post here.
The latest polling on same-sex marriage is going to make it harder for Santorum to base his campaign on hating the gays. Might help get him the GOP nomination (they still hate gays), but Ricky wants to be President. Gay marriage has been one of Ricky's favorite subjects for years. Remember this infamous gem from 2003?:
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
Think of the fun we'll have with this campaign.
Read More...
Every day it seems, the right-wings arguments about marriage crumble a little more. They're losing on public opinion -- and the trend is heading in our direction.
CNN just released its latest nationwide survey. There were two questions on marriage for gays and lesbians -- and the results are good. I added some emphasis:
Nearly half of all Americans think the Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.
Forty-nine percent of respondents think gay and lesbian couples have the constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law, while 51 percent say those rights do not exist.
The gap widens dramatically when age is taken into account. Nearly six in ten Americans under the age of 50 say gay rights are protected under the Constitution. Only 38 percent of Americans over the age of 50 say the same thing.
"This is one of the few instances when independents side with one party rather than falling in between the Dems and the GOP," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "56 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Independents think the Constitution conveys the right to marry to same-sex couples. Only a quarter of all Republicans agree."
By the time the Prop. 8 case hits the Supreme Court (assuming it does), we'll have a majority on our side. Not that the Court will take that into consideration, but it takes away a talking point from the haters. By then, hopefully the President will be on board with full equality, too.
And, even better numbers when asked if gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to right to marry. A majority supports that view:
In a separate question, some respondents were asked whether the Constitution should (rather than does) give gays and lesbians the right to marry.
"That's different than asking respondents what they think is currently in the Constitution," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. In that separate question, 52% said that same-sex couples should have the constitutional right to marry; 46% say the Constitution should not convey that right.
Rumors about Judge Walker's sexual orientation were well-known to attorneys for the state of California long before the trial concerning Prop 8. Why, then, didn't the State of California file a motion seeking the recusal of Judge Walker? The simple reason is that Judge Walker's sexual orientation -- whether gay or straight -- is not an appropriate basis for a recusal motion. In fact, the suggestion that Judge Walker's sexual orientation is evidence of bias is the kind of argument that was firmly discredited in a series of cases challenging the impartiality of black judges to decide civil rights cases.
Under federal recusal statutes, judges should be disqualified from hearing cases in which they are actually biased, but should also withdraw from cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In the late 1970s and early 1980s -- as a bumper crop of minority federal district judges appointed by President Jimmy Carter presided over employment-discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- recusal motions were filed by defendants seeking to remove black judges from hearing these cases. Black judges pushed back firmly against attempts to question their impartiality and framed what has become the universally accepted understanding among the bench and bar: that judicial bias cannot be assumed based on the racial, gender or other status of the judge.
In perhaps the most famous of these cases, lawyers representing the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell requested that federal district judge Constance Baker Motley recuse herself from hearing a case brought by women lawyers at the firm who charged discrimination in hiring and promotion. The law firm's motion for recusal was based on Judge Motley's status as a black woman and her professional experience as a former civil rights lawyer.
Via Denis Dison at Gay Politics, there were some big wins for Victory Fund endorsed candidates in primaries in Connecticut, Colorado and Georgia. And, it looks good for all three moving towards November:
In Connecticut, Kevin Lembo (pictured) won the Democratic primary for State Comptroller. Now a favorite to win the general election, Lembo’s on his way to becoming one of just a handful of openly LGBT candidates to win statewide office in the U.S.
Colorado State Senator Lucia Guzman won her Democratic primary, and is well-positioned to keep the seat to which she was recently appointed. Guzman is an ordained minister and an out lesbian who hopes to invigorate efforts to pass legislation that secures key partnership rights for LGBT people and their families.
In Atlanta, Joan Garner, an openly lesbian African-American, won her race for a seat on the Fulton County Commission. Because no other candidates qualified to be on the ballot in November, she will become the commission’s first openly LGBT member.
Yesterday, gay-obsessed Brian Brown and the NOM hate bus rolled into Raleigh, North Carolina. Pam Spaulding was there to greet them. She's got a must read post (with video) about the event, where equality supporters far outnumbered the haters -- again.
And, there's this classic, just classic, exchange between one of the haters and Ms. Spaulding:
Now what happened next was beyond surreal. This middle-aged woman with a floppy hat on and a clipboard in her hand, looking a bit wild-eyed, came over and asked us if we wanted to sign up for some "scientifically-based information on marriage." Robyn and I looked at each other and knew exactly where this was going. I said:
Pam: Scientific information? What are you talking about?
Fundie: I'm with The Ruth Institute (a "project of the National Organization for Marriage) and I have literature I can share with you...
Pam: I'm sorry, I'm not interested...I'm married to a woman.
PREGNANT PAUSE...FUNDIE JAW OPEN. Clearly she thought I was straight and on her side.
Robyn: I am married to a woman as well.
PREGNANT PAUSE...FUNDIE JAW OPENING WIDER. Oh NOES, her Gaydar is broken for sure! A fly could have entered and buzzed around in her piehole. Finally she regains her composure and says...
Fundie: You're marriage is not real. You're not married in the state of NC.
Pam: No, you're right. But when I go to visit my relatives in NY, I'm married. If I go to Iowa, I'm married, if I go to Massachusetts I'm married...
Fundie (interrupting, voice shaking): Your marriage is a legal fraud, that doesn't matter, what matters is natural marriage.
Pam (interrupting): My marriage is not a fraud...and I don't need your literature.
Fundie (turning and walking away, head exploding in anger): You're being rude...
Pam: Hey you're the one who came up to me first...(laughing).
There is no "scientifically based information" on marriage. NOM and its supporters are lying about it. If there was research, one of them would have jumped onto the witness stand at the Prop. 8 trial to testify about it. But, that whole "under oath" thing kept them from doing it. As David Boies said on Sunday during his debate with Tony Perkins:
There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.
More great news from our neighbors to the South. In Costa Rica, the Supreme Court won't allow a public vote on basic rights:
Costa Rica's top court has blocked the electoral tribunal from holding a referendum that would have let voters decide if same-sex civil unions should be allowed in the Central American country.
The Constitutional Court's 5-2 decision released Tuesday says such a referendum would put a minority at a disadvantage in a largely Roman Catholic country. It also says gay civil unions is a legislative issue and not an electoral one.
The court says it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights.
Another great ruling from the Supreme Court of Mexico. Same-sex marriage performed Mexico City are valid -- and must be treated the same as hetero marriages -- everywhere in the country:
Mexico's supreme court has ruled that same-sex marriages in Mexico City must be recognised throughout the country.
The ruling does not mean other states have to allow gay weddings on their territory.
Two of the court's 11 judges voted against the measure, arguing that it would damage the harmony of the federal system.
Last week the supreme court ruled that the law allowing gay marriages in the capital was constitutional.
The court will now consider the legality of allowing adoption by gay couples.
This would be akin to our Supreme Court saying marriages performed in Massachusetts or Iowa must be recognized everywhere in the United States. Ha. That would mean overturning Section 2 of DOMA, codified at 28 USC § 1738C:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Seems like we're far from that happening.
In both of the recent Massachusetts federal court decisions on DOMA, the Judge ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. That provision prohibits the granting of federal benefits to any same-sex couple (1 USC § 7):
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
What great timing. Last week, thrice married Newt Gingrich was one of the first right-wingers to trash the Prop. 8 decision. It was the height of hypocrisy.
Then, this week, Esquire printed a profile of Newt Gingrich, complete with some revelations from his second wife, Marianne. She talked about their divorce for the first time:
She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?
She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
Newt's a Catholic now. He had both previous marriages annulled in order to marry the woman, Calista (a.k.a. "The Chevrolet") with whom he was having the affair when married to Marianne.
So, I particularly enjoyed Marianne's comments on Newt's Catholicism:
When asked about his conversion, Marianne laughs.
Why is that funny?
"It has no meaning."
It has no meaning?
"It's hysterical. I got a notice that they wanted to nullify my marriage. They're making jokes about it on local radio. The minute he got married, divorced, married, divorced — what does the Catholic Church say about this?"
It doesn't matter what Newt does or how he lives his life. It's what he says. That will make a great slogan for his presidential campaign.
Read More...
Alvin McEwen adds to his long list of scientists and researchers who want the anti-gay industry to stop misconstruing their research:
Yet another researcher is accusing religious right groups of misusing his work.
John Horgan, a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, yesterday published an article in Scientific American calling various religious right groups to task for what he says is a distortion of his work.
Hogan's article is titled: Queer notions: How Christian homophobes misuse my "gay gene" report.
This is a pattern among homophobes. Alvin documents ten other examples of legitimate researchers who have complained about this right-wing tactic. This is especially important now:
In light of the Prop 8 decision last week and lawyer David Boies's eloquently put take down of religious right head Tony Perkins on Face the Nation about how religious right groups deal in fear and phony data regarding the lgbt community, these complaints of scientific inaccuracies need to be brought out to a wider audience.
Remember that it is these groups which the news media legitimizes by pushing them as the "pro-family" opposition without making people aware of their history of duplicity when it comes to lgbt research.
We need to understand that religious right groups and spokespeople don't deal with concrete ideas, but abstract illusions.
So, the homophobes push junk science and lie about real research. They've got nothing except their homophobia. We just need the traditional media types to understand that. Last week on Hardball, Chris Matthews seemed to figure out that Wendy Wright from Concerned Women for America was a homophobe. He told her it sounds like you've a real problem with the gay orientation of people. That's true. She's got no other argument.
Read More...
So Joe is surfing the Web yesterday, and he sees the following Google ad:
That's great - Obama's Organizing for America, now run by the DNC, is finally doing something on a major gay commitment of the President.
So Joe clicked through. Here's what he got:
Wow, it's a page where you can join OFA's email list, and help them on every other issue BUT gay issues in the future.
Nowhere is there a Senate target list, nowhere do they ask you to call the Senate to push for the DADT compromise to be passed. Just as they did a few months ago, OFA is simply dropping in on our civil rights in order to build their email list so they can fight on other issues that have nothing to do with gay civil rights.
It's pretty sleazy.
Now, if OFA had a track record of fighting for gay civil rights, then building a gay list might be a fine strategy - it would only help them contact that many more people when the time came to have everyone call their members of Congress. But OFA doesn't have a track record of fighting for gay civil rights. They in fact have a track record of using our civil rights to build their email list, then they ignore us.
So this is basically a PR stunt, and a sly way to build their email list, without really doing anything to help repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
