Fire Clint McCance

Clint McCance, who serves on the Midland District School Board in Arkansas wrote "I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die." Yeah. Great role model. He and Tony Perkins should team up.

Via The Advocate, there's a Facebook campaign underway to Fire Clint McCance.

The LGBT community has had quite enough of people who encourage gay kids to kill themselves -- and that's exactly what someone who talks like McCance is doing. Read More...

Meet Ed Potosnak, candidate for Congress, who knows that 'It Gets Better'

I hadn't seen this "It Gets Better" video from House candidate Ed Potosnak. He made it several weeks ago, in the wake of the death of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi. Turns out Ed is a Rutgers grad who worked in Tyler's building as an R.A.

Ed is running in New Jersey's 7th CD against first-term GOPer Leonard Lance. He's been endorsed by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America. And, he's got the support of our friends, Howie, John and Digby, at Blue America. Read Howie's original post, from March of 2010, here.

Ed had two televised debates last week with his opponent. They are both on his campaign website. Rosi Efthim at BlueJersey has a report. Also, I found this bit of info. intriguing: Apparently, Lance has an internal poll, but no one outside of his campaign has seen it. Let's just say, that if it was good, you can bet every political reporter in the state would have seen it.

There is a stark contrast between the candidates. Lance toes the GOP line. He voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell on May 27th.

We all know it would be great to have another out gay member of Congress. If you live in NJ, make sure you vote for Ed -- or donate via ActBlue. Read More...

Dept. of Education and four US Reps. take on bullying

Today, we saw activity from the Obama administration and four allies on Capitol Hill on the issue of bullying. Given that hate speech aimed at gay kids from Tony Perkins, we need it.

First, there's new "guidance" on the subject of bullying from the Department of Education. Via press release:

Today, the Department of Education issued guidance to support educators in combating bullying in schools by clarifying when student bullying may violate federal education anti-discrimination laws. The guidance issued today also makes clear that while current laws enforced by the department do not protect against harassment based on religion or sexual orientation, they do include protection against harassment of members of religious groups based on shared ethnic characteristics as well as gender and sexual harassment of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender individuals.

The guidance, which comes in the form of a "Dear Colleague" letter sent to schools, colleges and universities, explains educators' legal obligations to protect students from student-on-student racial and national origin harassment, sexual and gender-based harassment, and disability harassment. The letter provides examples of harassment and illustrates how a school should respond in each case.

The White House and Department of Education also announced next steps to address bullying and harassment in schools. Early next year, the White House will host a conference to raise awareness and equip young people, parents, educators, coaches and other community leaders with tools to prevent bullying and harassment. This conference will build upon efforts led by the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies to spark a dialogue on the ways in which communities can come together to prevent bullying and harassment.

The "Dear Colleague" letter, from the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Russlynn Ali, can be seen here.

I'm all about doing whatever it takes to protect LGBT kids. So, I hope this helps.

In addition, four members of the House, Reps. Nadler, Frank, Baldwin and Polis wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). From their press release:

Today, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jared Polis (D-CO), leaders of the House LGBT Equality Caucus, formally requested assistance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to stem the occurrence of suicides among LGBT youth. In response to recent highly publicized suicides across the nation, the Members sent a letter to Pamela S. Hyde, Administrator of HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) urging immediate action by SAMHSA to better protect LGBT youth and prevent further tragedies.

“The recent high-profile cases of LGBT suicide have been truly alarming and disturbing,” said Rep. Nadler. “Nationally, as American society is gradually becoming more supportive of the LGBT community and increasingly educated about its issues, the federal government must set a strong example in forward-thinking leadership and policy. SAMHSA needs to act now and do more to save young lives.”

Their letter to SAMHSA on LGBT Youth Suicide is posted on Scribd.com. Read More...

FRC's Tony Perkins: Gay kids know they are 'abnormal,' that's why they kill themselves

From Right Wing Watch -- who got this from NPR:

"There's no correlation between inacceptance of homosexuality and depression and suicide," he says.

Rather, Perkins says, there is another factor that leads kids to kill themselves.

"These young people who identify as gay or lesbian, we know from the social science that they have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict."

Homosexuality is "abnormal," he says, and kids know it, which leads them to despair. That's why he wants to confront gay activism in public schools. For example, his group supports the Day of Truth, when Christian high schoolers make their case that homosexuality is a sin.

This makes my head explode. He is aiding and abetting the deaths of young people. Has he no shame? Seriously.

And, can mainstream media outlets please stop catering to this extremism? This isn't a back-and-forth over some policy. This guy is an extremist. As John noted a couple weeks ago when the Washington Post printed an op-ed from Perkins, he is:

[A] man whose anti-gay activist organization has for years been promoting the "Nazi" science (that's what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls it) of a known "hate group" that is listed alongside the Klan on the SPLC Web site. The group's Nazi science is about bashing gays. And what did the Post permit the "faith expert" to write about? Anti-gay bullying. Seriously.

Read More...

A message to Barack Obama from Ceara, Constance and Will

This is really powerful. I hope Obama watches it:
Read More...

More Gibbs on DADT: Obama wants legislative repeal, won't commit to stop-loss

Robert Gibbs got several DADT-related questions today at the briefing from The Blade's Chris Johnson and The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld.

Just watch the video. You've heard most of his answers before.

UPDATE @ 4:28 PM: Igor Volsky, who captured the video, has more:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to say whether President Obama would be willing to use his stop-loss authority to end discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should Congress fail to repeal the policy, telling the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld “our efforts in the short term will be focused on the durable repeal of a law that the President thinks is unjust. And that’s where our focus will be.”

UPDATE @ 4:52 PM: Chris Johnson just posted his report on this exchange:

Asked by the Washington Blade whether the president has made any outreach attempts to encourage senators who voted “no” on moving forward with repeal to vote “yes” a second time around, Gibbs replied that no such outreach has taken place to his knowledge.

Still, Gibbs acknowledged that the only way the Senate could move forward with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — to which repeal language is attached — is to change some of those votes.

“To my knowledge, it hasn’t taken place yet, but, look, the only way we’re going to get something through the Senate is to change the vote count,” Gibbs said.

Read More...

Hero of the Month: Alan Turing

If you are reading this on a computer, you can be grateful to Alan Turing. You can also thank him for helping save the world from Nazism. Yet Turing’s contemporaries, instead of thanking him, hounded him to death at the age of 41 for being gay.

During this month in which we have lost so many young people to bullying and suicide -- a month which also happens to be gay and lesbian history month -- my thoughts keep turning to Turing, his achievements, and what more he might have accomplished had he continued his work.

Turing was a brilliant and eccentric mathematician who provided the blueprint for the modern computer in 1937. He then used his skills during World War II to design a machine that broke the codes the Nazis were using to send messages to U-Boats in the North Atlantic. His code-breaking work was part of a project so top-secret, that its existence and details were only revealed thirty years later.

After the war, Turing was prosecuted for gross indecency when he revealed his homosexuality to the police in connection with a burglary of his home. In lieu of jail time, Turing was given female hormones to chemically castrate him, and he began to grow breasts. Because he now had a criminal record, his security clearance was revoked and he could not continue at his job. Turing was later found dead in his home from cyanide poisoning with a half-eaten apple by his bed. It is believed that he committed suicide, although some have speculated that he might have been assassinated.

Once the details of Turing’s code-breaking work became known, he began to get his due. In 1999, Time Magazine recognized him as one of the 100 most important people of the 20th century. Last year, Gordon Brown, Britain’s prime minister, issued an official apology on behalf of the British government for its treatment of him. There have even been rumors that Apple computer’s rainbow-apple-with-a-bite-out-of-it logo is an homage to him, although Apple denies it.

Turing’s significance and legacy deserve to be taught in every school, as do the contributions of so many other LGBTs. Here is a website that has an impressive list of notable individuals, and a quote that explains why it is crucial that we and our youth know that those individuals are LGBT:

Within the typical secondary school curriculum, homosexuals do not exist. . . . They have fought no battles, held no offices, explored nowhere, written no literature, built nothing, invented nothing and solved no equations. The lesson to the heterosexual student is abundantly clear: homosexuals do nothing of consequence. To the homosexual student, the message has even greater power: no one who has ever felt as you do has done anything worth mentioning.

We will know we are coming close to equality when the curriculum is outed and the sexual orientation of accomplished LGBTs is not hidden from students.

UPDATE: Just as this was scheduled to be posted, I saw this report in The Guardian. A London school is reporting that it has cut anti-gay bullying by offering lessons on LGBT history. The future appears to be now at that school. Read More...

White House threatens gay orgs before key DADT meeting - don't mention DADT ct cases or meeting is over

Kerry Eleveld at the Advocate has obtained a White House email to gay organizations participating in today's high-level DADT summit at the White House.  The summit was clearly called as part of the White House's larger "charm offensive" to woo the left pre next week's elections.

In the email, the White House liaison to the gay community, Brian Bond, outright threatened our key national organizations that if any of them dare mention the DADT court cases - the ones the Obama administration keeps defending and appealing, even though they don't have to - the White House will immediately end the meeting.

I am speechless.

It's one thing for the White House to ask participants to keep the meeting to how to pass the legislation during the lame duck session - though I'm not sure such a request is valid, why shouldn't our leaders take the opportunity to ask the legal counsel why it's acting like Bull Connor? - but it's quite another to outright threaten our national organizations, and issue them ultimatums like they're children (battered children, at that).

Now, you might ask, isn't it true that parties to a court case can't talk about that case unless their lawyers are present.  Yes it is.  And the only reason this might pose a problem is because the White House invited their legal counsel to a legislative strategy meeting, which makes no sense whatsoever.  The legislation is written, it's already passed the House and a Senate committee.  Why does legal counsel have to be present at a meeting about how to get 60 votes in the Senate during the lame duck?  Unless legal counsel was invited in order to preclude a discussion of the court cases. (They also could have not invited LCR or Alex Nicholson, who are parties to one of the cases, and invited Jarrod (who also works with Alex) instead.)  Or... tell LCR and Alex that they can bring their lawyers too.  And finally, they could structure the discussion so they weren't discussing the case in question, but rather, the overall WH strategy on gay legislation.  They had a lots of options, but as usual, they went with the nasty one.

Nothing better illustrates the hubris the White House brings to its relations with its allies.  Our civil rights representatives are invited to a key meeting on DADT, as part of the overall White House "charm offensive" to win back the base before the elections, and the White House outright threatens our leaders.

Perhaps it's time our leaders started threatening the White House.

  From Kerry at the Advocate:

The Advocate has obtained a copy of an email sent from Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and the de facto LGBT liaison, to the meeting’s participants, who include: Allison Herwitt and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign; Shane Larson of the Stonewall Democrats; Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress; Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network; R. Clarke Cooper of the Log Cabin Republicans; Alex Nicholson and Jarrod Chlapowski of Servicemembers United; Nathaniel Frank, DADT expert formerly of the Palm Center; Jim Kessler of the Third Way.

[White House gay liaison Brian] Bond writes [in his email to the groups]:

“Obviously this meeting has gotten out. We are expecting the content of the conversation today to be off the record and to help us figure out how to move forward with the lame duck session.

Also as previously mentioned, there can be no discussion of current court cases or legal strategy or Counsel’s Office will end the meeting. The focus is repeal and the lame duck session. This is also a non-partisan meeting where we want everyone’s help.”

Read More...

Barney told Obama: Don't appeal DADT ruling

Barney Frank was on Mike Signorile's radio show yesterday and had a lot to say. For the first time in a long time, Barney is facing a real opponent. I thought what Barney had to say about DADT was most instructive. Here's Mike's synopsis:

He said President Obama "hasn't handled this well," and that he's "been disappointed," referring to the "Don't ask, don't tell" debacle. He said he urged the president at a campaign stop in Massachusetts last week not to appeal Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling and injunction ending DADT, arguing that this is a different case than most laws which the administration must defend. Frank believes the president should drop the appeal, especially if Obama does not get a vote in the Senate in the lame duck session of Congress.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination ACT (ENDA), which activists have been promised a vote on for over a year, Frank said the health care bill took up time, then DADT came up, and added also that "the transgender issue is a very difficult issue."

Definitely take a few minutes to listen to the audio that Mike posted. Read More...

White House hosting DADT meeting 'to discuss legislative repeal'

Kerry Eleveld reports that there's a meeting today at the White House between senior administration officials and gay groups to talk DADT strategy:

“The White House is meeting with several interested parties to discuss the legislative repeal of ‘don't ask, don't tell.’ The meeting will concern the work that remains to be done to ensure Congressional action on this issue this year,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The official did not name any participants of the meeting, but sources tell The Advocate that senior White House advisor Valerie Jarrett and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina are expected to be present.

Two key points from Kerry's article: First, the White House source said the meeting will focus on the legislative strategy for this year. That means lame duck and the prospects don't look good. If they're serious, they need to talk about the legal strategy, too. Second, the WH officials attending are Valerie Jarrett and Jim Messina. In the past, Messina has spearheaded the WH DADT strategy -- and we've all seen how that's gone. They've lost control of the issue.

Let's hope the "interested parties" at the meeting stand firm this time and demand real action from the White House. We can expect that from the Servicemember groups (SLDN and Servicemembers United). HRC and CAP's Winnie Stachelberg do whatever the White House wants. If they stood up to Messina at that DADT meeting back in February, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

This might not be the most important DADT-related meeting at the White House today. At 4:30 PM ET, Obama is meeting with guy who has been calling the shots on DADT: Secretary Gates. Read More...

White House's 'duty to defend the law' argument comes crashing down

Even the National Law Journal is now beating up on the Obama administration, and saying that the White House's talking point about having no choice but to defend DADT in court is utter bull. I hope someone sends all of these articles to Valerie Jarrett so she can see why everyone is eviscerating her for alleging, repeatedly, that DOJ simply must defend all laws. It's flat out untrue, as we've been saying for well over a year.  Unfortunately, this article is behind a firewall, but the summary tells you all you need to know.

DUTY TO DEFEND?:
The Obama administration opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but it's still poised to defend the law all the way to the Supreme Court. Justice Department officials say they are duty-bound to defend an act of Congress. Yet history shows that this argument doesn't always apply. During the last six years, according to records maintained by the Senate, the Bush and Obama administrations told Congress 13 times that they were not defending a federal law in court.

And a reader sent me the article.  Here's a small excerpt:

In 1992, back when Congress could occasionally agree on something, there was bipartisan anger over a beverage called Crazy Horse Malt Liquor because it insulted the memory of a Native American chief who happened to frown on alcohol.

Congress quickly passed a law barring federal approval of any beer label that displayed the words "Crazy Horse." The brewer promptly sued, and not surprisingly a federal judge found the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

When the question of whether to appeal the ruling in Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady arose, then-Solicitor General Drew Days III decided it would be futile; the law was beyond rescue. "Congress seemed to accept the decision not to go forward," Days wrote later.

So much for the vaunted governmental "duty to defend" acts of Congress, which has been invoked often in recent weeks in connection with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law barring gays from the military — a law that the Obama administration opposes but still is poised to defend. In cases much bigger than Crazy Horse — think Buckley v. Valeo and INS v. Chadha — SGs have been throwing provisions of federal laws under the bus for decades. And Senate records show that, 13 times in the past six years, during both the Bush and Obama administrations, the Justice Department has told Congress it is not defending an act of Congress.

Read More...

HRC claims Obama has done more for gays than any president in history

I'm not sure that's true at all. Yes, Bill Clinton signed DOMA and DADT. But his outreach to gays and lesbians was historic. Bob Hattoy, openly HIV+ and gay, speaking at the Democratic Convention during prime time. Roberta Achtenberg as HUD assistant secretary. The first openly gay ambassador. An openly gay man as a senior adviser to the President. And scores of openly gay people across the entire administration.

That was historic.

What President Obama has done the past 19 months, the word "historic" doesn't come to mind. Status quo is more like it. Obama did what any other Democratic president would have done.

Can you really say that Obama did more for gay rights than Hillary would have done? No. And I sure as hell voted for him because I thought at the time that he would.

Can you really say that Obama was more audaciously in favor of gay rights, for his times, than Bill Clinton was for his times? I don't think so.

So when the Human Rights Campaign goes on TV and parrots another administration talking point, that "this administration and this President have done more for LGBT people than certainly any president in history," I really have to challenge that.

The issue isn't whether Barack Obama appointed more openly gay people today than Bill Clinton did twenty years ago - he sure as hell should have, and would have, as would any Democratic president. The issue is whether Barack Obama has been our fierce advocate, as promised.

And he has not.

Yeah, Barack Obama is better than an anti-gay bigot Republican (though neither would seem terribly committed to truly repealing DADT and DOMA, nor passing ENDA - if Obama were truly committed, he'd have made even a single phone call for the DADT filibuster a few weeks ago, and he didn't - though he did find time to phone the WNBA champs).

Being better than a raging homophobe is faint praise for a man who promised to be so much more. Barack Obama was handed the greatest chance to effect real change in a generation. And he blew it. Don't expect me to express my gratitude to a guy who was handed a Rolls Royce and gave me a Hyundai in return.

PS And let's stop with the "better than any president before him" line. Are we really to express our gratitude that Obama is better on gay issues than George Washington? Read More...

LCR responds to DOJ on DADT stay

Today, the Log Cabin Republicans filed their response to the Department of Justice's Emergency Order for a Stay. As we all know, the Ninth Circuit temporarily granted the DOJ's motion last week. LCR had until today to respond.

Here's the introduction:

The district court’s prohibitory permanent injunction was entered following a full two-week trial on the merits and supported by an 85-page Memorandum Opinion, an 84-page set of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a 15- page reasoned Order Granting Permanent Injunction. It does not require the appellants to take any affirmative steps, nor does it require them to refrain from taking any of the steps they argue that they must take if they are to avoid irreparable injury. The district court’s injunction requires only one thing: that the government discontinue all investigations and discharge proceedings that have been commenced under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, 10 U.S.C. § 654, and its implementing regulations (“DADT”).

The government made no showing to the district court, and makes no showing here, either that it is likely to succeed on the merits on appeal, or that it would sustain irreparable injury if the district court’s judgment remains in place pending determination of this appeal. By contrast, the district court conducted a careful, extensive analysis of the law, at every stage of the proceedings below. It concluded, after a full trial at which it heard testimony from over 20 witnesses and received over 100 exhibits in evidence, that DADT causes irreparable harm to servicemembers by its very existence and implementation, subjecting them to investigation and discharge, and chilling their First Amendment rights of free speech and petition, while actually impairing unit cohesion, morale, and discipline – the very factors that supposedly justify DADT. The district court’s decision was not a political one, nor an instance of “judicial activism”: it was compelled by the evidence before it, presented at a full trial conducted under our adversarial litigation system.

Every day that the government remains free to implement the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, American citizens’ Constitutional rights are violated. The emergency stay of injunction that the government requests would perpetuate this unconstitutional state of affairs with no countervailing benefit to the government that outweighs the deprivation of rights such a stay would entail. The motion does not meet any of the factors for a stay pending appeal, and it should be denied.

SLDN, Servicemembers United and Lambda Legal have filed an amicus brief supporting LCR's position.

DOJ's actions in this case have caused a huge backlash -- and this issue has certainly captured the attention of the traditional media. The Obama administration and its DOJ do not have to defend DADT. They know it. We know it. They've lost control of this issue. Read More...

HRC finally agrees with GetEqual, and us, that Prez must issue stop-loss order on DADT

This is interesting. Did the White House put HRC up to this, which is usually the case for HRC's public pronouncements, or is HRC scared crap-less that come the end of the year they're going to be held responsible for none of our top three goals - DADT, ENDA, DOMA - being achieved?

HRC wrote an "open letter" to the President today. Such things are considered slaps in the face in this town, unless they're all for show, and have been approved by the "victim" in advance. HRC's record, like Obama's, is not one of boldness. It's difficult to believe that HRC got so fed up with the President - who they defended again today on TV - that they're suddenly issuing public ultimatums to the man.

More likely, the White House told HRC that they're going to issue a stop-loss order if the legislation doesn't pass lame duck - something GetEqual, and we, have been arguing for for months. And HRC and the White House then worked out a plan where HRC will publicly call for the stop-loss, and the White House will say "gosh, we just can't say no to HRC," and then issue the order.

It's never what it seems in this town, especially with these two.

Here is HRC's letter:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 25, 2010
Michael Cole | michael.cole@hrc.org |
HRC Sends Open Letter on DADT to President Obama
“Without your leadership and unparalleled efforts, this historic opportunity… will pass all of us by.” 

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign today released an open letter from HRC President Joe Solmonese to President Barack Obama regarding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and the necessity of administration action to end the discharges this year. The full text is below:

Dear Mr. President:

Years from now, students of the movement for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality (LGBT) will no doubt see this fall as a pivotal period in the history of our struggle for fundamental fairness. In January, we were all inspired by your State of the Union pledge to end our nation’s discriminatory ban on open service by gays and lesbians. Equally inspiring was the testimony in support of repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We have come so far, but the only true measure of success is whether the thousands of brave gay and lesbian Americans who are serving their country, and the many more who want to serve their country, can do so openly and honestly. We have not yet met that goal, and without your leadership and unparalleled efforts, this historic opportunity to remove a stain of discrimination from our nation will pass all of us by.

Last week, lawyers for your administration asked for an emergency stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to end a worldwide injunction of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law while they work to overturn a federal judge’s conclusion that this law – one that you have called discriminatory and contrary to our national security on many occasions – offends the protections of our Constitution. I continue to struggle with how your administration can defend a law you oppose, and how it could be even remotely constitutional for a statute to single out one group of brave Americans, because of who they are and who they love, and order them serve in silence and deception. How can our government have a duty to defend a statute that is clearly so contrary to our Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all?

The Ninth Circuit’s decision to stay Judge Phillips’s decision further frustrates repeal advocates and puts a bright spotlight on you to reconcile this endless legal wrangling with your public promise to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While we continue to call on your Administration not to appeal, if the Justice Department does insist on defending this discriminatory law, I strongly urge you to instruct government lawyers to inform the appellate court that the Executive Branch believes that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is unconstitutional. I agree with the esteemed lawyer and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, Walter Dellinger, that such a move would send the Ninth Circuit a critically important message.

Furthermore, the litigation strategy challenging “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is made all the more critical by the challenges a legislative repeal has faced in Congress. While the House approved repeal by a wide margin, the Senate’s first and second attempts to move forward on the critical Defense Authorization bill were stymied by Republican obstructionists looking to score political points before the midterm elections. There is still an opportunity for the Senate to send the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to your desk in the lame duck session, but it will not happen if you do not put the full weight of the Office of the President of the United States behind it. Republican opponents would rather see the Defense Authorization and everything in it – military pay raises, critical armor and equipment for our troops, health coverage for their families on the home front – fail than let gays and lesbians serve their country openly. This is an outrageous insult to our troops, to their Commander-in-Chief, and to the Defense Department charged with their operations and their care. You and Secretary Gates must be full partners in making clear to Senators that is doubly unacceptable to hold hostage the needs of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine in a desperate attempt to preserve a law that flies in the face of the American ideals they sacrifice to protect every day. 

It is because “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is contrary to our core values as a nation that it must end. And we must have a durable solution – legislative repeal or a solid judicial decision. But if those fail, you must not allow another day to go by in which a brave gay or lesbian service member is discharged based simply on sexual orientation. HRC has urged your administration, privately and publicly, for more than a year to use every tool at your disposal as Chief Executive to at least significantly reduce discharges, if not end them entirely. More can be done in this regard.

You can and should issue a stop-loss order suspending enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This discriminatory law has already deprived our military thousands of service members, many with critical skills in fighting terrorism. You have acknowledged that it harms our national security. If we fail to achieve legislative repeal this year, and if you will not abandon the defense of this discriminatory law in court, then it is imperative that you use your clear authority as President to end the discharges. Anything less is unacceptable.

We have fought long and hard to get this close to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We pledge to continue that fight, every step of the way, until this unjust law is gone for good. Future generations will look back at this moment – we must not let it become a setback in the long march toward full equality, but instead make it the turning point it is poised to become.

Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese
President

Read More...

NH paper refusing to print gay marriage announcements

CNN:

Greg Gould and Aurelio Tine say they just wanted to share their wedding plans.

So they went one of the largest papers in New Hampshire, where gay marriage is legal and generally accepted, to work up a wedding announcement.

But the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Manchester paper known for its conservative viewpoints, refused to print it – a decision that has sparked anger from the couple and lit up the Twittersphere and the Web.

Read More...