Manchester, England Pride 2010: I Just Wanna Dance

This video makes me proud of my English American heritage. Although, I've visited the U.K. often, I've yet to make it to Manchester. The closest I ever came to visiting was a brief, but torrid affair with one of Manchester's finest English Bobbies in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Don't get me started! On the other hand, don't stop me!



The conservatives of America who have made claims in the past, "'They' hate us for our freedoms," have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to providing LGBT American citizens the same human rights, protections and freedoms afforded by so many other western nations. Read More...

Charlie Crist supports constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Yes, Charlie Crist.

Today, on CNN, the independent candidate for Senate in Florida, Charlie Crist, maintained his support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Here's the transcript:

HENRY: Another big issue, same-sex marriage. Many conservatives like Marco Rubio support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But this week, the former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman came out and said he's gay and he called on conservatives to kind of move to the political center and be more tolerant on this issue. You have previously said in your gubernatorial campaign, you supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Now that you're trying to occupy the political center, are you still in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?

CRIST: I feel the same way, yes, because I feel that marriage is a sacred institution, if you will. But I do believe in tolerance. I'm a live and let live kind of guy, and while I feel that way about marriage, I think if partners want to have the opportunity to live together, I don't have a problem with that.

And I think that's where most of America is. So I think that you know, you have to speak from the heart about these issues. They are very personal. They have a significant impact on an awful lot of people and the less the government is telling people what to do, the better off we're all going to be. But when it comes to marriage, I think it is a sacred institution. I believe it is between a man and woman, but partners living together, I don't have a problem with.

HENRY: But governor, doesn't it sounds like you having it both ways by saying live and let live, but I also support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. If it's live and let live, why would you ban same-sex marriage?

CRIST: Well, everything is in a matter of degree, Ed, and when it becomes to the institution of marriage, I believe that it is between a man and a woman, it's just how I feel.

Where to begin?

How about here, here, here and here. And, there's also our post on Mike Signorile's recent post at Huffington pointing out the "outrageous hypocrisy" of corporate media when it comes to naming who is gay:

Yet, there are many "open secrets" about gay politicians, many of whom are conservative and anti-gay. But, for some reason, that's off-limits:

But the outrageous hypocrisy here on the part of the corporate media -- and one that shows how they are manipulated by the right -- is the fact that, even with proof and evidence, news organizations refuse to report on the secretly gay sexual orientation of conservative, anti-gay politicians and public figures when the argument for their exposure is made from the left. When Kirby Dick's much-discussed documentary Outrage hit theaters in 2009, and later premiered on HBO (for which the film has now been nominated for an Emmy), many media organizations wouldn't report on the conservative Republican politicians who were claimed to be gay in the film, like Florida Governor Charlie Crist or California Congressman David Dreier, though there was a plethora of sources and witnesses in the film -- far beyond just "open secret" reporting.

I think Charlie Crist should be the new poster boy for the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Read More...

NYT: Obama let Gates 'set a slow pace in overturning' DADT

You may recall that on April 30, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent a "strongly worded" letter to Capitol Hill making it clear that he did not want legislative action on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. That confirmed what SLDN had been hearing via "multiple reports" from Capitol Hill: Obama administration officials had been urging Congress not to vote on DADT this year.

It was Obama who repeatedly promised to end DADT -- and he reaffirmed that commitment in his State of the Union. But, Obama has let Gates set the agenda on DADT:

Mr. Obama has relied on Mr. Gates as his ambassador to the military and deferred to him repeatedly. When Mr. Gates wanted to force out Gen. David D. McKiernan in May 2009 as commander in Afghanistan in favor of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, Mr. Obama signed off. Likewise, cognizant of Bill Clinton’s ill-fated effort to end the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers, Mr. Obama let Mr. Gates set a slow pace in overturning the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, even though it has disappointed gay rights advocates.

Yes, that "slow pace" it has indeed disappointed gay rights advocates. We're going to be even more disappointed -- actually quite angry -- if the compromise DADT repeal language isn't signed into law this year. The looming problem is that the "slow pace" set by Gates may take us into the next Congress. And, if Democrats lose control of the House, there will be no repeal.

Let's hope Jim Messina, who (along with CAP's Winnie Stachelberg) concocted the DADT repeal compromise, has a strategy to make sure the Defense Authorization bill, which contains the DADT repeal language, is signed by the President this year. The GOPers are going to do their part to prevent that from happening. Read More...

Homoerotic commercials in Egypt?

Oh yeah. Andy Towle caught this one.

Read More...

Eleveld on marriage and Mehlman

Kerry Eleveld in the Advocate:

I fully understand that Mehlman’s revelation this week picked the scab off a wound that runs deep throughout the LGBT community, and I’m not absolving anyone of anything. But nor do I think it’s my place to stand in judgment.

Every morning newsprint slaps my coffee table with a mountain of injustice that often rims my eyes with sadness and occasionally rushes my heart with rage. And I would much rather train my sights on creating a future of fairness than stay mired in yesterday’s despair.

So instead of crucifying Mehlman, let’s hand him a pickax and a shovel and let him get to work on dismantling the hate he and his cronies helped heap upon a vulnerable and undeserving minority.

And who knows, maybe even President Obama and his advisers will get a whiff of the fact that spring is on its way.

Read More...

Wash Post on increasing GOP support for marriage equality

I'm telling you, growing Republican support for marriage equality is on the verge of posing a serious threat to the Democratic party. No, the Republicans aren't even close to Democrats, overall, on their support for gay civil rights. But Democrats, as we've seen, aren't often terribly serious in the support they claim to give us, while some Republicans, notably Ted Olson and Ken Mehlman, are doing some serious work to advance our number one issue, marriage.

I'm not saying gays should pick Republicans over Democrats. I'm saying that some very high profile Republicans are making some very high profile endorsements of marriage equality - and putting their money, and their influence, where their mouth is - while some very high profile Democrats, the President included, oppose marriage equality. And even those issues the Democrats claim to be good on - full repeal of DADT and DOMA, passage of ENDA - they aren't doing squat to fulfill those promises. And in a few short months, if we lose the House, we'll have lost any chance we had for a very long time.

At some point the Democrats need to realize that a lot of gay people have had it with their empty promises. The year is 2010, not 1985. It's not enough to show up at our dinners, issue a few administrative tweaks, and think we're going to jump and down for joy about how free we now are. Democrats promised us a full repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA. In return, we handed them the House, the Senate, the presidency, and a GOP opposition in shambles. In 18 short months, they pissed it all away. Now none of those civil rights goals are in the offing (and on DADT, the legislation being discussed isn't even a repeal).

DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias, and all the Obama apologists, can whine all they want about how unfair it is for us to expect the Democrats to keep their promises. But we do expect them to keep their promises, or at least seriously TRY to keep them - promises they made in exchange for our votes and our money - as naive as that may be. And if Democrats want our votes and our money, they can start fighting - really fighting - for our full inclusion in the American dream. And that begins with marriage. Read More...

1963 sounds a lot like 2010

From David Broder at the Washington Post:

No one was more nervous than the Kennedy administration, as the memoirs later published by veterans of the White House and the Justice Department make clear. What sometimes is forgotten in the glow of King's uplifting words is that this was a protest rally -- and protests do at times get out of hand.

The frustration was great because hopes for civil rights had been raised so high by John F. Kennedy's campaign rhetoric and by his decision to name his brother Robert as attorney general. The top ranks of the Justice Department were filled with civil rights advocates, but on Capitol Hill, the traditional opponents were slow-walking every bill, with scarcely an audible objection from the White House.

What became apparent, as the masses moved slowly along the Reflecting Pool and gathered before the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, was that if this was a mob, it was the most benign mob in history.

Even before a word was spoken -- let alone the eloquent words that have echoed down through history -- it had become absolutely evident from the people themselves that achieving civil rights would be the way to heal, not damage, the country.

I went back to the Star wondering what it was we had been afraid of. And I've remembered this many times since, when people have tried to teach us to fear certain things, such as someone else's marriage or place of worship.

Read More...

LGBT legal panel: There hasn't been 'real change' under Obama

Last week, John wrote a post about the LGBT Law Association conference, noting the panel on LGBT issues and the Obama administration included a slew of Obama apologists. That panel took place today.

Scott Blair, an AMERICAblog reader and NYU Law student, wrote to us from Miami, where he is attending Lavender Law, the National LGBT Bar Association Annual Meeting. He was at the plenary session, "Real Change: LGBT Issues and the Obama Administration." Scott provided his observations:

When I first saw the event, I don't think I was alone in expecting it to be a mostly celebratory piece on President Obama's accomplishments. Instead, there seemed to be a consensus, even from the most vehement supporters of Obama, that the President has failed to follow through on his promises to the LGBT community and has been in many ways a disappointment.

The panel consisted of Matt Nosanchuck (Senior Counselor to the Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice), Paul Smith (a partner at Jenner & Block LLP, Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of Lambda Legal), Courtney Joslin (a Professor at UC Davis and the chair of the ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity), Elaine Kaplan (General Counsel at the Office of Personnel Management), Jon Davidson (Legal Director at Lambda Legal), and Tobias Barrington Wolff (Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania and Obama's LGBT Advisor during his campaign).

The panel opened with a discussion of the Office of Personnel Management and the DOJ listing the changes brought under the Obama administration, along with some surprising information. Matt cited the passage of the hate crime bill as something that we can attribute to President Obama, and gave credit to the DOJ's testimony in Congress in support of the bill, and President Obama's support for it. Surprisingly, Matt referred to Matthew Shepard Act as a heavy lift in Congress, with attacks from both the left and the right. Along with lifting the HIV travel ban, and (perhaps most significantly), the fact that federal agencies can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity, there seemed to be a feeling that the White House had accomplished a great deal in what's clearly been a hostile environment for any sort of legislation. The rest of the panel was, however, far from convinced.

I could give a blow by blow of the panel, but a lot of it is familiar to AMERICAblog readers. The DOJ claimed it had a duty to defend all laws so long as they could be constitutional; Jon pointed out numerous instances where the DOJ has not defended a law.

The highlights were as follows:

1) Nobody could explain where ENDA went to, in light of the repeated promises (which were pointed out by the panel) from Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the Democratic leadership that we would have a vote on this soon. The explanation for this was put on the "worsening political situation," but as Jon pointed out, the window of opportunity for LGBT legislation is closing. As one panelist put it, "We are eighteen months into the Obama administration with no federal protection based on sexual orientation. This is remarkable."

It was pointed out that the federal government now bans discrimination in federal employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This does not seem a comfort to LGBT individuals facing discrimination in the private industry, but the only person on the panel who thought ENDA had a chance of passing this year was Tobias Wolff, who suggested it could pass in a lame duck session. The rest of the panel seemed to think it was dead.

2) DADT proved surprisingly divisive. Everyone on the panel who discussed it expressed unhappiness that Obama has not issued a stop-loss order to stop expelling soldiers. The DOJ was criticised for arguing that gays and lesbians are only entitled to rational basis protection, which unfortunately Matt didn't get a chance to address directly. Tobias claims that the repeal only happened this year due to White House pressure, and this is why we saw Ben Nelson and other senators support the compromise. Jon was critical of the compromise, which does not indicate when we will stop expelling gay and lesbian soldiers. And concern was expressed that the Democrats may not pass it before they lose control of the House. What this meant was unclear; several panelists (those not working for the DADT) were also unhappy about the shape of the "survey" about DADT. I think there's a fear that the survey results will be negative, and then the Democrats will lose control of the House, leaving Obama to say "Too bad, so sad."

3) Marriage oddly attracted the most attention. Tobias, who was perhaps the most supportive of the president's position, agreed that "The president is flat wrong. He is in the wrong place on this issue. I spent a year and a half as the campaign’s principal representative saying that on the record," but no one on the campaign criticized Tobias for disagreeing with the president. Tobias also thought that, "given the existential threats", such as the economy and health care, it's not surprising LGBT legislation has gotten so little coverage. Jon disagreed vehemently; as he put it, why can't the president walk and chew gum at the same time? "It may be the best administration we’ve ever had, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask for what we deserve."

Courtney pointed out her role in getting the American Bar Association to pass a resolution supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, which recently passed overwhelmingly. She didn't mention it, but I couldn't help but think that a Democratic president who studied constitutional law is now to the right of the American Bar Association.

There wasn't time for Q&A; during the panel, but I did get to ask Matt a question afterwards about the DOJ's stance that it has a duty to defend the constitutionality of all laws. In Perry, Republican governor Schwarzenegger and the Attorney General of California both decided that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, and argued so in court. This seems to be analogous to Obama deciding that DOMA or DADT were unconstitutional, and so I asked Matt whether he thought California had made the wrong decision by refusing to defend Proposition 8's constitutionality.

His answer was a bit unclear; he wasn't sure about how the balance of powers were allocated in California (presumably Schwarzenegger is some sort of God-Emperor whose word is law), and he said Proposition 8 different because it was a constitutional amendment that passed by referendum, unlike a piece of legislation that was passed by Congress. This seems to be a very, very thin reed on which to draw. Matt's stance is also a bit ironic, because in the campaign for California's Attorney General, Democrats are urging the GLBT community to donate to the Democratic candidate because he wouldn't defend Proposition 8. (The GOP Candidate for Attorney General did oppose Proposition 8, but thinks it's the duty of the government to defend all laws).

I'll conclude with a comment from Tobias, which seemed to reflect Elaine and Matt's views as well. He argued that "for the first time, gay Americans have a government which cares about them." Maybe. But I wonder if any of the soldiers who have been discharged on Obama's watch think he cares about them. And I wonder if gay couples across the nation think a president who still believes they shouldn't get married think that Obama is the president we deserve.

-Scott Blair
NYU Law, Class of 2011

Thanks for the excellent report, Scott. Read More...

Jon Stewart on the 'Gay Old Party'

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gay Old Party
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Read More...

2,000 march in Kathmandu Pride parade

Wild. I love the addendum Rex ads at the bottom of the article:

Sunil sent me these great pics just a few minutes ago. I know we've had this Interwebs/InnerTubes thing for like 18 years now, but it still blows my mind that I can sit in my underwear in San Diego and publish a report and photos from Nepal, to the entire planet, the same damned day the story happened. You young'uns have no idea what it took to report international gay news in the '80s, which I did. I oughta work on a little blog essay about how I did it back in the era of $2-a-minute international phone calls, jammed thermal-paper fax machines, and boat-mail exchange subscriptions with fledgling foreign-language gay newspapers from all over the world. As for photos, that was a $100, two-day FedEx adventure, in the best-case scenario. My first fax machine, by the way, cost $800 in 1980s dollars.

Read More...

Signorile explained the real impact of Mehlman's actions on LGBT Americans

Mike Signorile provided much needed context to the discussion about Ken Mehlman. There were real, often harsh, implications for LGBT Americans. Here's an excerpt of what Mike said:

But we cannot sweep under the rug what happened. I spent the day on the radio listening to people tell me about how their lives were destroyed in these campaigns in Arizona, people being forced to move, their neighbors turned against them. In Wisconsin, people's homes defaced, their children attacked. These campaigns were brutal. They used homophobia, they used hate and they used religious bigotry. That needs to be addressed. He needs to be held accountable and history needs to record it. It cannot be swept under the rug.

Note that John King admits to being a friend of Mehlman. You have to wonder how many of those insider media types knew Ken was gay, but either "protected" him or were strongly encouraged not to report it. I suspect Mehlman's news wasn't news to many of them. Read More...

Olbermann and Dan Savage on Mehlman

Read More...

Letter to the Pentagon about DADT from Victor Fehrenbach's sister, Angela Trumbauer

The Pentagon is surveying military spouses about the repeal of DADT. But, that won't give the full story about how DADT impacts families. So, 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."

Today's letter is from Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach's sister, Angela Trumbauer. She served in the Air Force, as did her parents. She's also married to a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant. Angela really understands military families. And, she knows the impact DADT has on military families:

August 27, 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:

My name is Angela Trumbauer. I am an Air Force enlisted veteran. I was born and raised in a family of 8 children by my father, a retired Air Force officer (deceased 1979), and my widowed mother, a former Air Force officer, who just turned 78 years young this month. I am married to a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant. My stepson is an active-duty Air Force Technical Sergeant. My brother is Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a highly decorated 19-year Air Force officer. I hail from the “military family” in every sense.

Over Victor’s military career, our family had limited opportunities to see and spend time with him. He came home to Ohio for visits once or twice a year, usually over the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays. I took my kids to visit him at his assigned Air Force Bases a few times over the years. We prepared and sent him care packages when he was deployed to Iraq. Vic sent me care packages when I was stationed in Greece years ago, while he was still a high school student. Reflecting back, I never gave much thought to his short 2-3 day trips home or the seemingly strained nature of the visits. All that changed in May, 2009, however, when my brother was forced to reach out and seek our family’s support in the most difficult battle of his life – fighting against his discharge under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

The revelations that have come to light and emotions evoked throughout the past year have brought a great sense of loss and heartache to our family, not unlike that experienced in grief and death. It saddened me deeply to realize that my single, younger brother could never enjoy a close personal relationship, free from fear of persecution or harassment, throughout his near 20 years serving. His family back home was free to enjoy wonderful family relationships with their spouses and children, but Vic was never to experience that same freedom and privilege while in uniform. I often wonder how alone or lonely he must have felt all those years, especially when he couldn’t even share his personal struggles with his very own family.

I recently took the opportunity to ask my brother who he would like us to notify in the event of an emergency or upon his death, after I realized he had no one else to confide in. Most soldiers and airmen have a support system in place, where their spouses or immediate family members are aware of their dying wishes and will share urgent news or handle the appropriate notifications with those closest to their loved one. In my brother’s case, I just figured the military would let us know if something happened to him and that no one else aside from his family members needed to be notified, since he was single and has no children.

Under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” the Fehrenbach family has been robbed of truly knowing and loving our brother for who he is for nearly two decades. He chose to serve in silence to protect his own family – the only family he can legally call his own – from potential exposure to investigation under DADT. We can never get those years back. Nor can we accept the damage to and destruction of our family’s long-standing military history that will result from Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s discharge under this discriminatory and unjust law. Our family legacy goes back generations, in which our father, mother, grandfathers, spouses, children, uncles and cousins have all answered the call to serve.

Despite all the suffering that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has caused my brother and our family, we have reaped a benefit far greater than words can measure. Since I’ve come to know and understand my brother’s true identity, and because he no longer has to hide any part of himself from me, our relationship has become much closer and deeper, where we laugh and share more than ever before. Vic can now be completely open and honest with me – an element that was clearly missing in our lives and relationship in the past. I can’t express the immense pleasure I’ve experienced in getting to know my baby brother --- “Uncle Baldy” as some of our 17 nieces and nephews call him.

In light of the infinite family gains that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will yield, I sincerely believe that allowing open service is necessary, right, and just in every sense. Each and every service member deserves the FULL love and support of their family and friends, without fear of persecution, discrimination and harassment. A strong sense of support and love is essential for our troops at all times. It only stands to reason that overall military performance is enhanced and the resolve to accomplish the mission is strengthened by complete and unhindered family bonds.

Sincerely,
Angela Trumbauer

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...

Republicans love to say they're on the same side of marriage as Obama

Okay, I'm over the Mehlman coverage. He's out. I get it. He's taken up too much of our time already (and he still has to make amends, serious amends.) But, the one positive element of this Mehlman development is that it has caused a discussion about the shifting views of some prominent Republican on gay issues, particularly marriage. And, it also gives those GOPers who aren't with us an opportunity to repeat the talking point that they're on the same side as Obama when it comes to opposing marriage equality. Seems like we'll be seeing a lot of this kind of reporting:

A number of prominent Republicans have broken with their party on the issue, among them former Vice President Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, strategist Steve Schmidt, who was John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign manager, and McCain's daughter Meghan.

But the issue conflicts both parties, as [former RNC Chair Ed] Gillespie, who preceded Mehlman as RNC chairman and who opposes same-sex marriage, pointed out. "Interestingly enough," he said, "I'm aligned with President Obama and his position, and Ken is aligned with Vice President Cheney and his position. It doesn't break cleanly along party lines."

Now, I'd like to think that this kind of statement causes people at the White House to cringe. Unfortunately, I think there are some key players on Obama's team of political geniuses who love reading a quote like that. They really don't want to be on the same side as the gays on this one. Team Obama is so politically tone deaf that I could see this becoming one of their talking points, you know, to show that Obama isn't beholden to the liberals.

Obama looks more and more out of touch on marriage equality every day. He's on the wrong side of history. But, he's on the same side as many GOPers and religious right types. Read More...

Family Research Council has a really bad ad attacking Reid on DADT

Poll after poll shows strong support for the repeal of DADT. We've even got hard core right-winger Liz Cheney on our side. But, the gay-obsessed Family Research Council is undaunted. Those right-wingers are on the air with an ad attacking Harry Reid over DADT repeal. Actually, it attacks "HARRY REID and HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS." The ad looks like something produced for local cable back in the disco era. See for yourself:

Not sure how this ad helps with any normal voter. The gay haters are already on board with Angle.

My guess is that, given the timing, FRC's ad is not so much about the Senate campaign. It's more about trying to make Reid delay consideration of the Defense Authorization bill, which currently includes the DADT repeal legislation. As we noted earlier today, Republicans want to push this issue into the lame duck session in order to kill it. FRC is hoping this ad psyches out Harry Reid. I can't imagine it will work.

This does show that our opponents are willing to go to any lengths to prevent the repeal of DADT. Read More...