Kerry Eleveld interviews Ken Mehlman about coming out

I'm not sure convinced that there's much earth-shattering in this interview. Though at one point, Mehlman does seem to wish he could take back some of the RNC's past anti-gay actions.

There’s a lot of gays and lesbians and other people who are still angry about the 2004 election and the fact that that those 11 amendments were on the ballot. Is there anything that you would like to say about that in particular?

Look, I have a lot of friends who ask questions and who are angry about it. I understand that folks are angry, I don’t know that you can change the past. As I’ve said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn’t in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can’t change that – it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.
But I understand the anger and I talk to friends about it – it’s something that I hear from a number of friends.

Read More...

House GOPers include DADT repeal in bills to block during lame duck session

The Republican Study Committee, according to its website, "is a group of over 115 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives." Today, I received, via email, a copy of a Republican Study Committee document titled, "The Looming Lame Duck Laundry List Dems Say, We’re not going anywhere!" (I've posted it on scribd.com) It lays out issues that the Republicans fear the Democrats will try to push during the lame duck session, assuming the GOP picks up control of the House. And, it makes clear that the GOPers will try to block those efforts. Here's the intro:

During this month’s special session of the House, a vote was held on a privileged resolution offered by RSC Chairman Price that would prohibit Congress from meeting between Nov. 2 and Jan. 3, except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency, requiring immediate action from Congress. Unfortunately, the measure failed. Apparently, since the resolution failed, the Democratic caucus is in lock step with the Pelosi-Reid agenda and remains committed to the consideration of unpopular legislation like a national energy tax, enormous deficit spending bills, and kickbacks to labor unions.

The big government agenda of Congressional Democrats has shown the majority to be out-of- touch with the needs and concerns of hardworking Americans, and their policies have created a cloud of uncertainty that has kept job creators on the sidelines. A lame duck session is the only way the Democrat majority can succeed in advancing their unpopular agenda because they know they do not have the support of the American people. The RSC has compiled a few examples of what the Democrat majority says it intends to bring to the House floor after the elections.

And, here's the section on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Just last week, it was reported that some Democrats hope to achieve passage of repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding treatment of gays in the military. The House, as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee, has passed legislation to repeal the ban. However, the full Senate has not yet considered legislation because a recent poll revealed the majority of likely voters in the upcoming election do not support a full repeal of DADT. As the election approaches, it is evident that Senate Democrats are avoiding being held accountable for this issue, unwilling to hold a vote to be on record before November.

Some conservatives have expressed concern the proposed amendment to overturn DADT would allow the President to prematurely enact a major cultural change in the military during the operation of two wars. Secretary Gates had requested for Congress to take no action on this issue until the Pentagon could review the implications of repealing DADT, by Dec. 1, 2010, to allow members of the armed services to express their concerns or support for such a measure. Congress should not use a lame duck for social experimentation before the military has had enough time to review the measure.

Where to begin? You have to love that Obama's Secretary of Defense handed these GOPers their strongest talking point.

Also, the poll cited above comes from the Military Culture Coalition, which includes among other Elaine Donnelly's Center for Military Readiness. In the real world, polls from credible sources, show extremely strong support for the repeal. Republicans know that, but they're still willing to do whatever it takes to prevent this law from ending.

The Senate really must take up the Defense authorization bill in September. If it slides to the lame duck session, that only strengthens the hand of repeal opponents. Yesterday, I linked to this blurb at Politico, "IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE HOUSE – Lobbyists predict that defense bills will come to a screeching halt, which could spell doom for the already controversial defense authorization bill." And, I added what John wrote last month about the Democrats who are already bending over backwards to assure Republicans they won't pass legislation during the lame duck session.

The Republicans intend to be bullies about any lame duck legislation.
That's what this RSC document is all about. And, for the most conservative members of the House caucus that includes the repeal of DADT.

If you haven't contacted your Senator about supporting the repeal of DADT, do it now. SLDN has an action center. Servicemembers United is holding a lobby day on September 16th. The pressure is on. Read More...

Another thought on Mehlman from my friend Chris

I'm fascinated by the varying reactions to former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman coming out (most of them, negative). Here is one from my friend Chris (not Chris in Paris):

On Ken Mehlman, I think you are striking exactly the right tone.

My frustration about closeted Republicans has always been a burning irritation at the flagrant disrespect they show for their own constituency – they view them as torch wielding morons to be deployed when needed in support of tax cuts who ask only to be fed the occasional sacrificial minority.

The pawns they manipulate are, however, people like my own family. Who are now, virtually without exception, on board with full equality for gay people – because I took the time to talk to them over the years and treat them with respect. Plus, they love me.

I certainly don’t envy the position Ken Mehlman was in, or is in now – because of his public profile.

When I was on the Hill, I was completely out. I came out in my job interview. So I bopped around thinking that I had dealt with the "closet" monster.

But it still completely freaked me out the first time that somebody came into the office to ask for my help because they had heard that I was gay – and they had not heard it from me. (They got the help – I freaked out privately later.)

I think most straight people don’t understand that coming out is rarely something that you do once and never have to do again, and I know that I hadn’t considered the ramifications of being out to the extent that I was no longer in complete control of the information flow.

So, Ken Mehlman has plunged into the deep end of the pool. I wish he had done it earlier, but I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the guts that it took for him to do this.

Chris

Read More...

On Mehlman, I'm more interested in equality than revenge

I get that people are angry. And they should be. But I don't think the anger negates the other side of the coin, that Ken Mehlman coming out as a gay man is good for our community.

I started AMERICAblog six years ago. But I started in gay politics 17 years ago, when I volunteered with Senator Kennedy's office on the original gays in the military debate. I was angry back then, in the early 90s. Angry that a country I was always told, always believed, was the freest place on earth had relegated me to second class citizenship. But more importantly, stronger than my anger was my desire for full equality. I didn't get involved in gay politics out of a desire to get even. I got involved in gay politics because I want my equal rights.

And that takes us to Ken Mehlman. A lot of people in the community have reacted to Mehlman's coming out with scorn and derision, and rightfully so. I get that people are livid about finding out that a gay man was overseeing the Republican party at a time when the party was (and still is) supremely homophobic - a time when they were pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution, something Mehlman himself once agreed with. Joe dug this little Mehlman nugget up yesterday, for example:

"I think the issue was injected when a liberal court in Massachusetts said they were going to redefine a 200 year old institution in this country by judicial fiat," said Mehlman, who also endorses a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- political catnip for the Christian Right.

Pretty disgusting stuff, to say the least.

The following comment a reader left on the post I wrote last night about this issue is typical of the community's response:

I sincerely hope this article is a massive joke. If so, haha! If not, please read a list of the things this man pushed forward during the Bush-era to seriously harm the gay community and tell me again I should be happy or supportive this man crawled out of the closet.

Mehlman had incredible political power and influence, who could have just as easily led a quiet closeted life in no way harming the LGBT community. But instead he worked with the homophobic religious right, orchestrated successful anti-gay policies and helped bigoted politicians enter into office for his own damn profit.

Oh, boo hoo! Coming out is so hard~!

I get the anger. Trust me, I was pissed at him too, and knew he was gay probably long before he did. That's why we routinely posted Mehlman's photo on the blog (Mehlman Mondays, we called it, if anyone recalls), and routinely called him out for being a closet heterosexual (i.e., a supposedly straight man who was afraid to even say he was straight). So I get the anger, and the sense of betrayal that someone gay could oversee an organization that gay-baited our civil rights for their own political profit. Someone mentioned Roy Cohn. And it's not an unfair comparison, for someone so high level. A large part of the reason I launched AMERICAblog in 2004 was my anger at the Republican party, and George Bush in particular, for their embrace of the Federal Marriage Amendment. And Mehlman was Bush's campaign director.

So I get it. But maybe I'm just more political than most. So, naturally, when I hear the news of Mehlman's coming out, I'm trying to think of how this revelation might aid our battle for our civil rights.

It's a given that Mehlman was involved in horribly anti-gay politics as the head of the Republican party. But now he's coming out and embracing the cause of marriage equality. And from what I hear privately, from friends who know, he's for real - he's helping us out, and in a big way.

So can't we be pissed at Ken Mehlman for doing really bad things to our community, and at the same time welcome his desire to begin to make amends? Should we refuse his offer to become an ally because of his admittedly atrocious past? If we accept his offer, does it mean that we somehow dishonor the past? And if we turn down his offer, are we not sending the message that we never want anti-gay Republicans to come over to our side?

From my perspective, we should recognize an opportunity when it's dropped in our lap, regardless of our rightful and righteous anger - or perhaps not regardless, but rather alongside. I simply want my civil rights more than I want revenge. It's the way good politics works, I think - and it's the way politics used to work in this country - putting the potential to move forward today ahead of your legitimate anger about yesterday. It's something the White House, for example, doesn't understand about us. They think we criticize them - and we do, a lot - because we either hate the President, are the kind of people who will never be happy, or simply because we're nuts. What they don't understand is that our anger is not irrational, and it's not motivated by a desire to exact any kind of retribution against the President. We beat up President Obama because we want him to keep his promises to our community, and we truly believe that the only way those promises are going to be kept, in full, is by keeping the pressure on the President. We don't beat him up because he's pissed us off, because it feels good to do so, or out of any sense of revenge. We beat him up because we think it's a wise tactical move towards achieving our political goals. It's the same analysis I try to make on any political move I make. Will it serve the larger goal or not?

Ditto with Mehlman. If someone can explain to me how it advances our civil rights to spurn Mehlamn's offer of help, I'm all ears. Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree with Joe's post of last night, reminding people that the media is engaging in some pretty bizarre whitewashing of Mehlman's actual anti-gay rights record. It serves no purpose to lie about what Mehlman did in the past, and it does a disservice to the memory of those he harmed. But I truly believe, with all my years of successful activism to back me up, that while anger is justified, it's only a useful political tool when it advances the cause. Anger for the sake of anger isn't why I'm here, and it's not why I'm in politics. I'm here to advocate for our full and equal civil rights. And if Ken Mehlman thinks he can help me do that, he's welcome to try.

I remember, back in the early 90s when I was working with Kennedy's office on gay rights issues, the shock of seeing Kennedy's staff working with conservative Republicans who were willing to help on gay issues, regardless of how bad those Republicans were in the past, or even the present, on other issues near and dear to the left. I was there when Kennedy got Barry Goldwater on board to support the repeal of the military's gay ban. I'm sure some at the time loathed Goldwater, and couldn't believe that Ted Kennedy was welcoming his support. But Goldwater's support on the issue, even though we didn't win in the end, was a blow to the forces of hate. Kennedy welcomed it, and I welcome it. ("It doesn't matter if you are straight, just if you can shoot straight" anyone?) In retrospect, I challenge anyone to argue that it was wrong, immoral, or politically unhelpful for Ted Kennedy to get Barry Goldwater on board. If you agree with me on this one, tell me how Mehlman was any different than Goldwater, in terms of working for the forces of darkness?

And it didn't stop with Goldwater. I remember how Kennedy's staff even worked with Jesse Helms' office. Yes, you read that right.

It seems that Helms had some staffers who weren't entirely thrilled with their boss's anti-gay agenda. At times, those staffers would leak the text of an upcoming Helms anti-gay amendment to Kennedy's office the night before a key Senate debate. The only reason Kennedy got the amendment ahead of time - something which was incredibly helpful to our efforts to stop Helms' hate - was because Kennedy's staff was smart enough, and politically savvy enough, to reach out to, and form a relationship with, an office that was trying to destroy them, and us. Again, I challenge anyone to explain to me, and the rest of the community, how it was a bad idea to get a copy of Helms' hate amendments ahead of time. In fact, it was brilliant.

Then there's Ted Olson. Boy oh boy did I get an earful when I welcomed the legal prince of darkness into our fold by writing that it was a good thing he was representing us in our legal battle against Prop 8. People were rightfully ticked at the guy. But I remember one reader telling me Olson was a fifth columnist, only pretending to be on our side, and some day, in court, he'd turn on us! Didn't quite work out that way, and today Ted Olson is a hero in the gay community. He may still think himself a conservative Republican, he may still be one, but he's now done more than most of us to advance the cause of gay equality. And no one reasonable questions the benefit of having Olson on our side.

Sometimes you work with people you don't like in order to achieve the greater good. Or at least you should. Sometimes they've seen the light, sometimes they haven't. But if your interests coincide, and they're not going to stab you in the back, why not accept their offer of help? Does it really dishonor the past to acknowledge the harm they've caused at the same time you welcome the good they can do?

I firmly believe that it advances our cause more to embrace Ken Mehlman than to shun him. That's my theory. I challenge you, rather than simply posting ad hominem attacks on me in the comments, to respond to that one simple point. Tell me why embracing Mehlman will not advance our civil rights agenda, and tell me why shunning him will. The man is ridiculously well connected, and a major power in the Republican party, even after leaving the RNC. It's not like people lose their contacts once they move on to another job. On the contrary, it's the reason people because such rich and powerful lobbyists after working in government - precisely because they retain much of the contacts and influence they had before.

Ken Mehlman now wants to use his contacts and influence to help me win the right to marry. I don't care if he ripped the heads off baby bunnies back in 2004, if he's willing to help us now. My enemy's enemy is my friend. And if Ken Mehlman wants to be my friend, and start on the path towards making up for all the bad things he did in the past, I'm not going to spurn his help, and set our movement and community back by missing this incredible opportunity, simply because the guy (rightfully) pisses me off. How do you think the religious right is reacting to the news that Mehlman isn't just gay, but he's actually helping us in our battle for full marriage equality - helping us challenge Prop 8? I'm guessing that they're not calling us suckers for accepting his help. They're most assuredly livid at, and scared to death of, the impact he's going to have on behalf of our rights.

The best revenge is living well, they say. It's also living free. If Ken Mehlman wants to help me become a full and equal citizen of these United States, he's welcome to try. Read More...

A letter to the Pentagon about DADT from Joseph Rocha's dad, Jose

As we all know, the Pentagon is currently surveying military spouses about the repeal of DADT. To provide a fuller picture of how DADT impacts families, SLDN is releasing "a letter each day this week from family members and spouses of former service members impacted by DADT. As the Pentagon reaches out to 150,000 straight couples on how their lives are impacted, these letters will share the perspective of those forced to serve under this law alongside their loved ones."

And, wow. Today's letter is really powerful. Joseph Rocha's dad, Jose, kicked him out of the house when he learned that his son is gay. Today, Jose wrote a letter to the Pentagon Working Group about the need to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

August 26, 2010

Hon. Jeh C. Johnson
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group

General Carter F. Ham
Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group

Dear Mr. Johnson and General Ham:

I am a heavy machinery truck driver; I have been all of my life. A blue collar American who raised my son, Joseph Rocha, in a Roman Catholic home with strong Spanish values, after his mother lost custody for drug abuse. Throughout school Joseph turned out to be an awarded scholar, athlete and leader. I did my best to provide a good home for him. But, I wasn’t prepared for my only boy to turn out gay.

Early on in his senior year, at 17, he left the house on one condition: that he never return.

I learned through my wife that he was excelling quickly in the military. He was promoted twice in his first year and was hand-picked for explosive detection school. We had no idea that during his 28 months in the Middle East, he was being abused by his superiors because he wouldn’t tell them if he was gay or not. He only ever called home to tell my wife he loved working with the dogs and about his aspirations of becoming an officer.

He sent gifts to his kid siblings for every single holiday and called them religiously. He was a hero to my girls. I struggled through our silence knowing that I was missing out on my son. As it sank in that Joseph might be injured or killed in the service, it became clear how irrelevant who he wants to love is. On a phone call home to congratulate me for my birthday, I told my son for the first time that I was truly proud of him and asked him to live his life for himself, not for me or anyone else.

After receiving a Naval Marine Corp Achievement Medal for his service overseas and being accepted to Naval Academy Preparatory School to go on to the United States Naval Academy and earn a commission, Joseph was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Recently, just after his mother’s death, I asked him what he would be doing this year when he becomes the first in our family to graduate from college. I was surprised when he said that he wants to serve again. I asked him why he would go back after all they did to him. I asked him if he was prepared to go back to the Middle East. He replied that he was never meant to be done serving.

Joseph contributed to my family and to the families of each of his co-workers: loyalty, respect and service. My son had always lead by example and in coming out he has taught his siblings pride and his favorite value, integrity.

I am proud of my son and it makes me sick now to read the Navy documents detailing the abuse he stomached in order to try and save his career. He is a brave young man and a patriot. I know now first hand that the old ways are not always right and I ask that you encourage your superiors to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Please allow my son, Joseph C. Rocha, and countless like him, to resume their military careers.

Sincerely,
Jose J. Rocha

CC:

U.S. Sen. Carl M. Levin
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee

U.S. Sen. John S. McCain
Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

Joseph's letter to President Obama is here. Read More...

Rewriting recent history, NY Times now reports Mehlman 'tended to avoid social issues'

This deification of Ken Mehlman over his recently discovered homosexuality is already getting absurd.

Tonight, Michael Luo from the New York Times absolved Ken Mehlman from any involvement in George Bush's fiercely homophobic campaign back in 2004:

Mr. Mehlman was in Mr. Bush’s inner circle in both presidential campaigns, and ran his campaign in 2004. But Mr. Mehlman, in his work as chairman of the Republican National Committee and as head of Mr. Bush’s campaign, tended to avoid social issues, arguing that they would undercut the Republican Party’s efforts to expand its appeal.

I'm not sure how Mr. Luo determined the Mehlman "tended to avoid social issues." Maybe Luo took Mr. Mehlman at his word (just like reporters took Mehlman at his word when he said he wasn't gay.)

But, perhaps Luo should have at least checked the archives of his own newspaper. For example, there's this story from James Dao from November 4, 2004:

Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates including President Bush in Ohio and Senator Jim Bunning in Kentucky....the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters - who historically have leaned heavily Republican - may have tipped the balance.

Hmmm. Who came up with that strategy. Well, maybe if Luo googled something like "mehlman" "gay marriage" 2004, he would have found this:

According to religious leaders, the conference calls with White House officials started early in the Bush administration and became a weekly ritual as the campaign heated up. Usually, the participants were Rove or Tim Goeglein, head of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Later, Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman and Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and the campaign's southeast regional coordinator, were often on the line.

Yes, Mehlman was in the thick of it. I don't think that strategy decided the election, but Mehlman and his colleagues used it.

Luo might have found this, too, from 2006:

"I think the issue was injected when a liberal court in Massachusetts said they were going to redefine a 200 year old institution in this country by judicial fiat," said Mehlman, who also endorses a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- political catnip for the Christian Right.

See, we gays tend to see using those strategies and that kind of language as engaging in social issues, specifically anti-gay engagement.

So, let's not rewrite history. Many of us remember vividly how the Bush campaign, managed by Ken Mehlman, used gay baiting and gay bashing as a core part of its strategy. It was ugly. And, it happened.

I get that Mehlman is now trying to make amends. After what he did to the gay community in 2004, he has a long way to go. Read More...

In Maj. Witt's upcoming DADT trial using the 'Witt Standard,' 'facts are not on the government’s side'

Excellent editorial in the Tacoma News Tribune about Don't Ask, Don't Tell with two key points: 1) the U.S. Department of Justice won't be able to meet the "Witt standard" in the upcoming DADT trial of Major Margaret Witt -- and it couldn't meet that standard against Victor Fehrenbach and 2) DADT has to end.

On Witt:

A federal judge, in a trial set to begin Sept. 13, will apply a new standard to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This time, the burden will be on the military to prove not that Witt is a lesbian – her sexual orientation is not in dispute – but that her homosexuality is harmful to her unit’s cohesiveness.

It will be the first judicial application of the so-called “Witt standard” established by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Obama administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal the 9th’s decision to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for the trial in U.S. District Court next month.

The facts are not on the government’s side: More than a dozen of Witt’s colleagues have given sworn declaration objecting to her dismissal; one was so angry that he refused to re-enlist.

Should the Witt standard blunt the don’t ask, don’t tell policy as expected, it could prove a boon to gay service members who have been waiting on Congress – to date, in vain.

Waiting in vain for Congress -- and the President.

The conclusion:

But the Witt standard is a stopgap measure and no more. It provides limited relief since it applies only to cases in Western states that make up the Ninth Circuit. And it isn’t preventing people like Jonathan Hopkins of Morton – a West Point graduate who led three combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan – from having to leave careers they love.

Don’t ask, don’t tell needs to go, and it’s up to the Senate to finish the job when it returns next month.

The Senate needs to finish the Defense bill in September and get it to conference ASAP. Delay hurts the chances for passing the compromise bill this year. Opponents of DADT repeal know that and will do everything possible to cause problems. Our allies, starting with the President, have to make sure that nothing interferes with the process of getting the compromise DADT bill signed into law.. Read More...

BREAKING: Former RNC chair Ken Mehlman comes out as gay man

Holy cow.

Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.

He said that he plans to be an advocate for gay rights within the GOP, that he remains proud to be a Republican, and that his political identity is not defined by any one issue.

"What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party's philosophy, whether it's the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married."

"I hope that we, as a party, would welcome gay and lesbian supporters. I also think there needs to be, in the gay community, robust and bipartisan support [for] marriage rights."

Okay, my thoughts.

Good for Ken. I know a lot of people will want to criticize him for heading up the GOP as a closeted gay man. He says he only recently came to terms with being gay. I suspect he always knew he was gay, but recently came to terms with accepting it, and embracing it. And good for him. He's now doing the right thing, helping support marriage equality. I'm not going to fault him for that. Coming out is a horrendously difficult and complicated thing. It's not rational.

Now, does that mean I oppose efforts to out people who are hurting our community? Absolutely not. I was there with the rest of them calling Mehlamn out for being a closeted gay man running a homophobic political party. Our long-time readers will remember Mehlman Mondays on AMERICAblog. I long talked about Mehlman being the only closet-heterosexual I'd ever heard of - a man not willing to admit he's straight.

But that doesn't mean we don't embrace him now. And not just for strategic reasons. Mehlman, from what Ambinder says, is doing the right thing. He's now using his position in the GOP to help our community on our number one issue: marriage. For that, he deserves our thanks.

Now, let me say, the GOP was happily anti-gay under Mehlman, so I don't buy his story that he helped temper their nastiness. They were still homophobic bigots, regardless of what Mehlman did or didn't do, and he chose to remain as their head. For that, he gets no thanks. But is he making up for it today? You betcha. It's a start, and a damn good one.

As for the Democratic party, I hope someone at the DNC is starting to sweat. We now have the former head of the Republican party who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay marriage. There's a virtual groundswell of senior Republicans coming out for marriage equality. It can't be going unnoticed in the gay community. And while it doesn't mean 70% of the gay vote will now go Republican instead of Democrat, it does mean that growing numbers of gays and lesbians will starting thinking of the GOP as a legitimate alternative to the Democratic party.

And finally, how about that religious right? The Republicans lied to them about Mehlman for years. And Mehlam himself admits that he used his position as RNC chair to help stop the GOP gay-baiting. The religious right was totally pwned.

More on this, I suspect, in the coming days. Read More...

Gay candidate for State Rep. in Wichita found death threat on his front door

Via Joe.My.God who got the news from the Kansas Equality Coalition, Dan Manning, a candidate for State Rep. in Wichita, found a written death threat on his front door over the weekend.

Here's what it looked like:

More from Thomas Witt at the Kansas Equality Coalition:

The note is clearly an offensive way to use threats of deadly violence in an attempt to intimidate and silence Dan and his campaign and, by extension, our entire community and our interests in Topeka. Dan has no intentions of backing down and has seen this latest example of bigotry as proof that his campaign must go on. He and his campaign team’s resolve is now stronger than ever.

Dan’s campaign has been a struggle from the first day. While the challenge of defeating a far-right, incumbent Republican in a swing district is one thing, that Dan’s sexual orientation has been used against him in a hateful way is another thing. Dan not being able to count on the support of his own Democratic Party is another thing altogether. Dan has even had party officials suggest that he hide his own sexual orientation and spend the campaign in the closet. Dan needs support, not indifference.

Worse than indifference from the Democratic Party has been the reaction from some in our own community – those whose apathy or resignation has led them to believe that there’s no place for openly gay candidates and leaders in Kansas. Their willingness to surrender the public stage to people like Brenda Landwehr, and to the person who left this hateful message on Dan’s door, is unacceptable. Dan will not surrender, and neither should we.

Extreme violence in politics is a road Wichita has been down quite recently. Until his assassination 14 months ago, Dr. George Tiller endured years of death threats and attempts on his life. Dr. Tiller never compromised on his commitment to women’s rights. Like Dr. Tiller, Dan will not be intimidated into silence, and will not be pushed back into the closet. Dan believes that the only way to respond to those who would silence us is by making our voices louder and more numerous, not by surrendering in silence and fear.

As Kansans, we must send a message to those who oppose us that we will not be intimidated, we will not be forced back into the closet, and we will not be treated as second-class citizens whose relationships don’t matter.

Read More...

Covington, KY is taking a stand against recent anti-gay hate crimes

There have been a series of anti-gay attacks in Covington, Kentucky over the past few weeks:

Recent crimes targeting gay people in Covington spurred the Covington City Commission and more than 80 people to gather Tuesday at city hall to decry hate crimes and reaffirm support for the human rights ordinance the city passed in 2003.

Police said they have increased patrols in MainStrasse and will start tracking incidents of ethnic and anti-gay slurs and hate speech.

A group of residents has also formed "Zero Tolerance for Hate Crimes in Covington" and will host an event at six bars in MainStrasse on Saturday to raise money for an anti-hate campaign.

"We have had three incidents in the last several months and it has got to stop now, said Mayor Denny Bowman.

When a local tv reporter was doing a story on this issue -- at mid-day in the downtown area -- occupants of two cars yelled anti-gay slurs as they drove by. Video here.

But, as the mayor said, it has to stop. One recent attack seems to have galvanized the community and residents are organizing against the hate. Check out the facebook page for Zero Tolerance for Hate Crimes in Covington. It's already got over 1200 fans. And, I got a press release and flier from the organizers of “Covington’s Night Out: A Night of United Community”::

Although there have been multiple instances in the area of violence aimed at gays, the recent attack by two men against two local women has shocked the entire Covington community into taking action. What began as a concern for gays & lesbians in the area has gained support from all members of the Covington community.

Around 1:00 am on Sunday August 15, a group of people were assaulted at the corner of Pike St. and Main St. near Yadda Club, a well known gay bar. The perpetrators, one tattooed with swasticas and a white supremacy mark, yelled hate slurs aimed at gays and lesbians. One of the women was beaten, and several bystanders who came to the rescue were knifed.

The attack drew sympathy and support from all members of the community, who began organizing to make a change. The facebook page “Zero Tolerance for Hate Crimes in Covington” clearly shows the attitude of the community, having reached over 1,100 supporters in the 10 days since it was created.

Now the group of concerned residents, patrons, and business owners are taking that energy and outrage forward in a positive way by creating an ongoing campaign to empower the community as a whole to embrace diversity, promote tolerance, and end violence and hate of any kind through education and communication.

Saturday August 28th ,“Covington’s Night Out: A Night of United Community” will be the first event associated with this movement. Six of the predominantly gay or gay-friendly bars in the Pike St. and Mainstrasse area will team up with the Covington Police Department to reclaim the streets as LGBT friendly, and raise funds for an ongo- ing campaign.

Turns out, the sister of one of my friends was a victim of that August 15th attack. She's okay and has been instrumental in organizing the response.

The hate crimes really, really suck. The community response is really, really encouraging. Go Covington. Read More...

Mixner on Obama and marriage

David Mixner:

First and foremost, the LGBT struggle is one of the great civil rights movement of our times. Given that, quite honestly, there is simply no logical personal or political reason for President Obama to be against marriage equality. At this stage there can only be two conclusions: that he is a political coward or that he does indeed hold prejudice against LGBT citizens. Nothing else fits at this stage. No one can make any more excuses and no one can justify his position any longer. Looking at the facts, the statistics, the political reality and at the President's current position one can only say "Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you."

This weekend two factors forced me to focus on his lack of leadership on this issue. One was a brilliant article in the New Republic by Richard Just entitled simply "Disgrace" and the other was a chart published in The New York Times showing the massive change in support across the country for marriage equality. Combine that with a recent CNN poll that showed 52% of Americans believe now that marriage equality is a Constitutional Right and you see how ridiculous his position has become before the public.

The President should look to his fellow Democrats for courage. Overwhelmingly, Democrats now support marriage equality.

The [New Republic] article concludes with this amazing paragraph. Please read these lines very carefully. The highlighted parts are mine.

But, while he may not realize it, Obama is already leading on gay marriage; he is just leading in the wrong direction. Every time Obama or a surrogate reiterates his position, it reinforces the idea that gay marriage is a bit too scary for the political mainstream. Worse, Obama’s stance seems to be a way of conveying to the country that he knows a lot of people still aren’t completely comfortable admitting gays and lesbians as full participants in American life, and that this is OK because he isn’t either. It is about the most cynical gesture you can imagine from an allegedly liberal leader—and we deserve better. I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Obama.

Read More...

If GOP wins House, there could be no defense bill, meaning no DADT repeal

This is extremely worrisome. We've been saying for almost two years that Obama and the Hill Democrats needed to deliver on their campaign promises, including the repeal of DADT. Instead, they dawdled. The White House refused to push the legislation until their hand was forced. Now, we're reaching a critical point.

From Politico's Morning Defense:

IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE HOUSE – Lobbyists predict that defense bills will come to a screeching halt, which could spell doom for the already controversial defense authorization bill. They provide a couple of reasons: The level of partisan bickering is likely to intensify, and waiting and letting Republicans handle those bills next year will allow the Democrats to play the blame game. The one kind of legislation that’s likely to move, insiders say, is a continuing resolution. To that end, the appropriations committees have drafted two – one that runs through Nov. 15 and another that will last until the end of January.

If there's no defense authorization bill, there's not going to be any DADT language this year. The House passed its version of the bill and it includes the compromise language (that language, concocted by Winnie Stachelberg at CAP, sets up a complicated process that doesn't even establish an end date for the law.) The Senate Armed Services Committee added the compromise DADT language. But, the full Senate has yet to act. The Senate needs to take up the defense authorization bill as soon as they get back from the August recess. Then, that bill has to get to conference ASAP.

We can expect procedural shenanigans from John McCain and his GOP colleagues whenever the defense authorization bill hits the floor. He could filibuster the bill, move to strike the DADT language or try to amend the DADT language to include what SLDN calls the "killer amendment" of adding all the Service Chiefs to the certification process. All of these tactics could slow down final passage of the legislation. The way the schedule is now, even if everything goes according to plan, final passage wouldn't take place until after the elections. That's means we're already in the lame duck session. As John explained last month, Democrats are already bending over backwards to assure Republicans they won't pass legislation during the lame duck session. Now, we're learning that there could be no authorization bill if the GOPers take the House.

So, yeah, the elections matter. We know that. But, we've been told we needed to elect Democrats in order to get the full repeal of DADT, passage of ENDA and repeal of DOMA. We did our part to help. And, what have we gotten? No ENDA. No DOMA repeal. And, we might get a law that starts the process of ending DADT. Read More...

A letter to the Pentagon about DADT from Chief Petty Officer Lee Quillian, USN (Ret.)

The Pentagon is currently surveying military spouses about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. SLDN "will release a letter each day this week from family members and spouses of former service members impacted by DADT. As the Pentagon reaches out to 150,000 straight couples on how their lives are impacted, these letters will share the perspective of those forced to serve under this law alongside their loved ones."

Today's letter is from a retired servicemember who lives "with a wonderful person who was fired because of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' (DADT)." Retired Chief Petty Officer Lee Quillian describes the level of deceit required to serve without being exposed. It's intense and it's wrong. Pretty sure the Pentagon Working Group won't be learning about what life is really like for gay and lesbian servicemembers from its survey:

August 25, 2010


Hon. Jeh C. Johnson
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group

General Carter F. Ham
Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group

Dear General Ham and Mr. Johnson:

I am a retired military sailor, living with a wonderful person who was fired because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

Because of my experience with the military, I understand the life, the duty days, the underway time, the training cycles. Even the simple events of life at sea – how wondrous or disastrous mail call can be, depending on whether or not you get a letter; the whirlwind caused by the simple announcement of liberty call; and the sounds of the Navy - the bells, the whistles, the constant hum and different noises of shipboard living. These are just some of the various events and sometimes intense evolutions that occur around the universe called the United States Ship. I’ve been stationed on five of the best ships in the Navy. I speak the language, I know all the acronyms, and it’s an organization I’ve spent most of my closeted life in.

If my highly decorated and accomplished spouse had been able to stay in the Navy, her professional life would have included all of those same events mentioned previously, and more. She would have undoubtedly been stationed on board a ship of awesome capabilities. That ship would deploy, do training missions, visit foreign and domestic ports, and represent the world’s finest Navy. She would stand watch, hopefully in something better than a port and starboard rotation. If you don’t know what a port and starboard rotation is, just imagine working at your current job, six hours on, then take six hours off, then go back to work for six hours. Repeat 24/7 for the next 180 days.

She might even be sent on an Individual Augmentation (IA) to Iraq or Afghanistan while in her current assignment. During an Individual Augmentation, she would literally be loaned out to cover a critical needs job, however long that may be, in addition to her regularly scheduled deployment cycle.

I, however, would have to adhere to a strict set of rules when dealing with a deployment, whether it be an IA or ship deployment. Here are just some to think about – they reflect what life is like for military families under DADT:

· Set up an alternative e-mail account that wouldn’t show the gender of my name;

· Establish a very generic, genderless form of communications over e-mail;

· Never write “I love you” – or nothing that could indicate anything at all about the nature of our relationship;

· No access to the Ship’s Ombudsman – a point person for military families for all things very, very important relating to the ship and her crew;

· Create a plan for dropping her off at ship – making sure our goodbye or welcome is in secret;

· Never spending the remaining few hours on the ship like with the rest of families before a deployment;

· Worrying about how close to the pier I could be without raising suspicion;

· Before leaving home, be sure to say final goodbyes – no hugs and certainly no kisses allowed on or near the base;

· Not being able to participate in any family video postcards to the ship;

· Still trying to figure out how to deal with those pesky customs forms required when mailing anything to a “Fleet Post Office” – they require a name, so maybe use her parent’s name or the dog’s name;

· Don’t put anything too personal in care packages – those might arrive via barge, waterlogged and falling apart – therefore, they might be opened;

· As a result of the rough handling from a helicopter mail drop, any other boxes I send could be opened if damaged;

· Don’t get sick, seriously sick, and don’t get hurt while spouse is gone;

· Hope she doesn’t get hurt as no one would tell me – I can’t be listed as her next of kin in her service record without raising eyebrows;

· Remember to have her pack her personal cell phone and the charger for use six to nine months later – can’t use any of the ship’s communications, so the cell is the only way to coordinate a pickup upon return home;

· Knowing that when the other families are waiting at the pier, I wouldn’t be able to stand among them anxiously awaiting my sailor’s return.

This isn’t everything. It’s just a glimpse.

Sincerely,


Chief Petty Officer Lee Quillian, USN (Ret.)


CC:
U.S. Sen. Carl M. Levin, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
U.S. Sen. John S. McCain, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

Read More...

Another chance to support equality: Will Obama's DOJ weigh in on Prop. 8 appeal?

Team Obama keeps hoping to avoid the issue of marriage equality. But, they can't ignore it. Over the next few months, we're going to find out if the DOJ is defending DOMA's constitutionality in the Massachusetts cases. And, we'll find out if Obama meant it when he said he supported the Prop. 8 decision. The crack team of lawyers in Obama administration can go on-the-record with its support of Judge Walker's decision. They can. But, will they?:

Days before the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama said California's Proposition 8 was "unnecessary" and "not what America's about."

Now, some same-sex marriage advocates are hoping Obama's Justice Department will make a similar argument in court. The federal government is not a party to the Proposition 8 litigation, which pits gay and lesbian couples against supporters of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But the Justice Department could weigh in as amicus curiae -- either when the case arrives at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court or, sooner, before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Such a decision would typically be up to Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal with input from across the federal government, including the White House.

The involvement of the Justice Department would add further significance to what is already the nation's most-watched court case, officially named Perry v. Schwarzenegger, while also raising difficult political questions for the Obama administration. "There have been people encouraging the U.S. Justice Department to follow the progress of the Perry case, to discuss it internally and to support the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans," said Jennifer Pizer, director of Lambda Legal's Marriage Project, which filed an amicus brief in the case's trial phase.

Pizer would not detail internal strategy, such as lobbying of White House or Justice Department officials, but she and other advocates of same-sex marriage said there are reasons for the federal government to become involved in the case. For one, there are Obama's 2008 comments in opposition of Proposition 8. For another, they argue, the federal government has an interest in protecting civil rights -- though that interest has been complicated in the context of homosexuality.

Let's be clear, this won't be a legal decision. It will be pure politics. So far, the political geniuses in the White House (the same geniuses who took Obama from an approval rating in the high 60s down to 43% this week) have stuck to their opposition to marriage equality. Axelrod reiterated that position the day after the Prop. 8 decision. Yes, the Obama political operation wants to stay as far away from the marriage issue as possible. But, the longer they wait to deal it -- and by deal with it, I mean Obama supporting marriage equality -- the more outdated and out-of-touch the President looks. This case presents another opportunity. We'll see how it goes. Read More...

Evangelicals picket gay couple's home simply because they're gay

Lovely.
Read More...