Pelosi calls for Obama to stop discharging gay servicemembers immediately

Very interesting.

Pelosi Statement on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement in response to a letter sent this afternoon by Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concerning the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy:

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”

To me, this is Pelosi calling the White House's bluff. She's in essence saying, if DOD is saying they don't want to do repeal this year, and the White House isn't in cahoots with them, then the President can issue an immediate moratorium on discharges and prove it. I have no proof that this is what is going on, but this statement from Pelosi, taking on the President directly, is highly unusual. Read More...

There is still a window for passing DADT repeal this year

The news today that Defense Secretary Gates and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs Mullen have written to House Armed Services chair Skelton, telling him that they don't want to see legislation repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" this year, has caused quite a stir, to put it lightly. The thing is, I'm not convinced that DADT repeal is dead yet. Here's why.

For all the strong-wordedness of the letter, it fails to make one crucial point. Namely, why legislation can't be passed this year that includes a repeal delayed until after the Pentagon study is complete. It's actually the norm with most legislation to give agencies a number of months, after a bill becomes a law, to prepare the rules and regulations they need to implement legislation. And until those rules and regs are done, the legislation doesn't yet kick in. The same thing can be done with regards to the repeal of DADT. The legislation can be passed this year, and the implementation can be delayed for a period of 180 days, or however long is needed to insure that DOD's study is first complete.

If you look at everything Secretary Gates has said to date, including today's letter, never has he given a reason why we can't just pass a delayed implementation bill right now. Gates' concern, he says, is simply to make sure the "implementation" study is complete before IMPLEMENTING the repeal. And that need is met with a delayed repeal bill passed this year. Gates has never expressed any concerns about DADT that wouldn't be met by the delayed implementation bill.

Now, if Gates and Mullen are asked directly about delayed repeal, and then oppose it, then we have our answer: Their concern isn't DADT being repealed before their study is completed, their real concern is DADT being repealed at all. Which would mean they lied to the Senate committee earlier this year when they said they were for repeal. And lying to a Senate committee would bring up a whole other problem for both gentlemen. Read More...

White House issues weak response to Gates on DADT

Remember how the President promised in the State of the Union to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year? That's the last clear positive message we got from anyone in the Obama administration. Tonight, the White House had to respond to the "strongly worded" letter sent from Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to the House Armed Services Committee Chair Ike Skelton. Those two made it very clear they do not want legislation to repeal DADT this year. Kerry Eleveld got the response statement from an unnamed "White House spokesman":

The President’s commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That’s why we’ve said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right.

Um, "you" said DADT would be repealed this year. Now, "you" seem to be saying it will be delayed until the DOD study is completed. That won't happen til December. So, what is it? And, why can't someone at the White House just be clear, you know, like Obama was in the State of the Union?

This seems to confirm that the White House is willing to wait til the Dept. of Defense concludes its study. Based on what Gates and Mullen told Skelton that's what the Pentagon wants. Skelton is opposed to repealing DADT. It's unclear who is actually calling the shots on this one.

Here's the problem (again): If Democrats suffer election losses this fall, which just about everyone seems to think will happen, then DADT won't be repealed during Obama's first term. That sucks on so many levels. But, it's brutally unfair to the gays and lesbians who put their lives on the line for the rest of us. To Obama and his political team, this is just another broken political promise. To the servicemembers impacted by DADT, it's their lives.

And, Gates and Mullen have been on the record about his position since last month -- and Gates indicated the President was "very comfortable" with his approach:
Read More...

SecDef Gates writes 'strongly worded' letter opposing DADT repeal this year

Just who is the Commander in Chief anyway?

Not to mention, it's nice for Gates to try to torpedo the President, who promised to repeal DADT this year, but his argument, that they need to study before the repeal, totally ignores what the legislation actually does. It doesn't repeal immediately at all. It's easy to make sure that the implementation of the repeal doesn't happen until after the DOD study is completed. But Gates never addresses that point. Then again, Barack Obama doesn't either.

Here's the letter from Gates:
Letter from Sec. Gates to Chairman Skelton on DADT
And, don't think this wasn't coreographed. The House Chair of Armed Services, Ike Skelton, who opposes repeal of DADT, asked for the letter:
Letter from Sec. Gates to Chairman Skelton on DADT Read More...

It's not pedophilia and incest, but Obama admin's new DOMA brief is still rather nasty

As Joe just reported, the Obama administration has again defended DOMA in court. The good news: No mention of incest and pedophilia this time. The bad news: The brief is still quite nasty.

The Obama administration vociferously argues that gays are not, and should not, be considered a suspect class. For you laymen, that means we're not like other minorities. Because if we were, they'd have to give us our civil rights. So the Obama administration is actually outright undercutting our legal battle for civil rights:

Plaintiff’s allegations that DOMA compels the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Binding precedent in this Circuit forecloses this Court from finding that DOMA involves a “suspect classification;” nor does the statute impinge upon any right that the courts have held to 1 Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 47 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 22 be “fundamental.” Despite this Administration’s disagreement with DOMA as a matter of policy, the statute satisfies rational basis review and this Court should, accordingly, dismiss plaintiff’s constitutional challenge.

This Court should – and, in light of First Circuit precedent, must – decline plaintiff’s invitation to break new ground in the law of equal protection and suspect classifications.

And now the Obama administration is using Don't Ask, Don't Tell to argue that we're not as good as other minorities. Kind of a two-fer of nastiness, using DADT against us, when they're defending that in court too:

Plaintiff concedes, as it must, that the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit “recently applied rational basis scrutiny to the law excluding gay and lesbian persons from military service, and noted in its opinion that ‘homosexuals are not a suspect class’” (Doc. 29 at
32). See Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, 62 (1st Cir. 2008).

Obama administration using their new gay federal employees benefits bill as a cudgel to stop us from overturning DOMA. This one is particularly galling. The administration has been bragging for a several months about this arcane federal employees benefits bill that would provide benefits to some partners of some federal employees. It was clear from the git-go that the administration, along with HRC, was using this legislation to try to make up for screwing us on DOMA, ENDA and DADT. Well, now the Obama administration is using that bill to argue why DOMA shouldn't be struck down. So now we know why the administration is offering the benefits bill - among other reasons, they think it helps them keep DOMA as the law of the land. Unbelievable.

DOMA satisfies these interests by defining “marriage” and “spouse” as those words were defined by all fifty States in 1996. Congress may subsequently decide to allocate federal benefits with recognition of same-sex partners, as the Administration believes it should. Indeed, bills currently pending in the House and Senate would provide various types of federal benefits for the samesex domestic partners of current federal employees. See S. 1102, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R.
2517, 111th Cong. (2009). The Constitution permits Congress to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time and to adjust national policy incrementally. See FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 316 (1993); Medeiros v. Vincent, 431 F.3d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2005). Therefore, Congress’s 1996 decision to maintain the status quo in 1996 was not= irrational or unconstitutional.

Next, the Obama administration argues that there's nothing constitutionally:

That is the “status quo” that Congress could reasonably have sought to maintain in enacting DOMA. Congress had to choose between two interests: continuing in all respects the “tradition” of accepting any marriage valid under state law, or continuing to define marriage, at the federal level, as only opposite-sex marriage. That Congress chose the second over the first does not make the choice unconstitutionally irrational.

DOMA is a good thing for the Obama administration, it makes their job easier not having to worry about all those pesky marriage rights for gays:

From a federal perspective, DOMA preserves nationwide consistency and uniformity: notwithstanding the rapidly changing legal status of same-sex marriage among the States, DOMA established that “marriage” and “spouse” would refer only to opposite-sex marriage for purposes of federal law. In the absence of DOMA, federal rights would depend on the differing and changing status of same-sex marriage in each State. Congress could reasonably have concluded that federal agencies should not have to deal immediately with a changing patchwork of state approaches to same-sex marriage.

Read More...

DOJ vociferously defends DOMA -- again

This afternoon, the Department of Justice filed another brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Today's filing supports DOJ's motion to dismiss that case brought against DOMA by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Attorney General Martha Coakley. As we are all aware, Massachusetts does allow same-sex marriage. The DOJ brief also argues against the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment.

John and I just got our hands on this document and are beginning to analyze it. The Obama administration's DOJ has, unfortunately, gotten really good at defending anti-gay laws. Last week, Peter Rosenstein wrote a column at DC Agenda titled "We have a major problem at DOJ ." He's right. And, we still do.

Latest DOJ brief defending DOMA Read More...

Now the religious right is outing people

That's a relatively new phenomenon for them, I think. The guy who wrote this release worked for the Concerned Women for America, and now is on his own. He's more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal, to put it lightly. He also recently held a press conference in Maine with a hate group - a lot of religious right groups promote known hate groups, it's terribly creepy, but I guess to be expected. He really does exemplify the creepiness, and hate, of the top religious right groups and leaders.

Oh, and I think he forgot a name. Read More...

Meet Juan Rodriguez and Felipe Matos. They'll inspire you.

Great piece by Kerry Eleveld on Juan Rodriguez and Felipe Matos who walked from Miami to DC on their own "Trail of Dream":

When partners Juan Rodriguez and Felipe Matos arrive at the White House Saturday at 2 p.m., it will mark the realization of a dream they completed one step at a time, literally.

The couple forms one half of a quartet of college students who set out on January 1 to walk from Miami to Washington, D.C., in order to raise awareness about immigrants nationwide who call this nation home but have no path to citizenship.

“It’s unbelievable!” says Rodriguez, reflecting on the near completion of their journey. “It’s hard to imagine that we’ve walked so far, especially seeing a map and knowing that I recognize those communities now and can connect those cities with the faces of people who have been working so hard on immigration reform.”

In fact, what they refer to as the Trail of Dreams walk has fed off the generosity of strangers united in a cause.

They were on CNN yesterday. Impressive young people. Read More...

Is 'Spill, Baby, Spill' a teachable moment re: DADT?

Will the horrible oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico awaken the Obama Administration to the fact that some times you simply must stand on principal and follow through on your promises? Or will this be a lost teachable moment?

The flooding of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is an example of how President Obama has tried to be too cute by half in order to cojole Republicans into supporting climate change legislation. The administration simply has not learned that making backwards wrong headed decisions based on Republican sloganeering can have bad political ramifications for them and their future. It is either that, or even worse, they actually believe the snake oil Republicans are selling them, and lied during the campaign to their staunchest supporters. Obama can ill afford to continue ticking off his progressive base, especially with mid-term elections around the corner.

The massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could impact President Obama's plans to consider new offshore drilling sites, administration officials said today.

The White House announced today that it is sending three cabinet members to oversee the effort to control and clean up the spill, which is much worse than first thought. Liberal activists are pointing to the disaster as a reason for the president to reconsider his decision to open up the southern Atlantic coastline and some other areas to offshore drilling.

Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner emphasized today that no plans for new drilling have been established yet and that the president's decision was simply "the beginning of a process" to consider new plans over the next five years.

Now, I don't want to be one to say, "I told you so," when it comes to using conservative policies, like maintaining DADT and "Drill Baby, Drill" to desperately try to get Republicans to become friendly to your agenda, but...

Memo to the White House: If you attempt to co-opt regressive conservative policies, like ENDA, DADT, DOMA and "Drill, Baby, Drill!", then don't be surprised if it blows up in your face, causing even more problems down the road. The American people voted for you to change Republican Bush policies. Anything less than following through on your promises to every community, including the gay community, is simply a kinder, gentler oil slick. Read More...

A letter about DADT to Obama from Former Army Capt. Rebecca H. Elliott

SLDN has released its fifth letter in the series, "Stories from the Frontline: Letters to President Barack Obama." Every day, SLDN is posting another letter from a servicemember impacted by DADT. The President promised to repeal DADT this year. Time is running out.

Later today, SLDN's Trevor Thomas will be liveblogging on this series over at DailyKos. I'll post the link when it's up. Here's the link.

Here's the letter from Former Army Capt. Rebecca H. Elliott:

April 30, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am the mother of two young children, and an Iraq war veteran. I joined up just like my dad – a retired Army officer – and my sister, who currently serves in the Guard. My brother is a reservist and has been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two weeks ago, our family gathered together as he is leaving again for Afghanistan -- his 4th deployment. Even my husband, Jay, served as an officer in the Air Force until 2008.

Like my dad, I chose the Army. I reached the rank of Captain and was a platoon leader in the military police. I was there during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I had some of the best NCO's (non-commissioned officers) in the Army who could accomplish any mission. Several members of my platoon received decorations for valor during the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On my last day of active duty, some of my old squad leaders revealed to me that one of my former team leaders was gay. They figured it was safe to tell me, as I was leaving the Army. My first feelings on the matter were, frankly, a little surprised, followed by complete indifference.

I was surprised because I had never suspected the soldier of being gay. But then, I never really had any thoughts about her sexual orientation whatsoever.

When I reflected on it, it didn't make one bit of difference in how she performed her job or how she related to the other soldiers in the platoon. She had the respect of her squad leaders (fairly conservative men, mind you), who kept her secret and continued working with her side-by-side for years.

As an officer, I would have been bound by my position to report such “credible information” that would have led to the discharge of a great NCO. I am glad that I was never placed in the position of having to choose between one of my soldiers and enforcing this terrible law, which I feel is unfair and wrong.

Please, Mr. President – at this critical time -- do not allow those serving their country to be forced to choose between good, honorable soldiers, and upholding an unfair law.

Please, do not continue to allow gays and lesbians in the service to have to choose between hiding a part of their identity and continuing to serve their country.

Please, help Congress repeal “Don't Ask Don't Tell” now.

Respectfully,

Former Capt. Rebecca H. Elliott
Untied States Army

Read More...

Civil unions have passed in Hawaii's legislature, needs signature of Governor

Back to where the marriage debate began. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that paved the way for same-sex marriage until November of 1998 when voters changed the state's constitution to bar it.

But, this week, there was legislative progress in Hawaii on partnership recognition:

By a vote of 31-20, the Hawaii House today approved a civil unions bill just hours before the end of this year's legislative session.

The measure would give unmarried same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights as married couples under state law. The bill passed the Senate in January by a vote of 18-7 and now goes to the governor for her consideration.

Gov. Linda Lingle had urged lawmakers against taking up civil unions this session and to instead focus on the state's budget deficit. She has not said whether she would sign or veto the bill.

Lingle has 45 days to decide. If she vetoes the bill, the House and Senate can come back in a one-day override session in July.

The Governor is a Republican. She's also term-limited and not running again.

In 2010, civil unions are considered a very moderate proposal. So, come on Governor Lingle, be a human. Read More...