NYT on where DADT stands in the Senate

Nothing terribly new in the article, but it is a good summary of where we are. Read More...

Mullen expresses surprise at new Marine commandant dissing DADT repeal

I'm not terribly surprised.  These kind of public outbursts have been happening for two years now - well, for a few decades actually.  Not to mention, how many times do we have to hear Gates and his stooge Morrell subtly undercut the repeal effort before someone tells both of them to take a hike?  Of course, it's all moot now - Gates won, it's over, the legislation is going nowhere for years to come.  Congratulations to HRC, CAP and the White House - the big three who concocted this winning plan. Read More...

Asst Att. General who cyber-stalked gay college student fired in Michigan

About time.  Now he's claiming to be the victim. The guy sounds like he needs some serioius help. Read More...

The nationwide ramifications of losing three judges in Iowa, and crazy Maggie weighs in

Steve Silberman writes about the nationwide ramifications of NOM's successful effort to remove three judges in Iowa who ruled in favor of marriage equality. You'll note that someone who sure seems to be the real Maggie Gallagher weighed into Steve's comment section.

Never mind that the removal of the judges threatens to impede the operation of the judiciary in Iowa, denying justice not only to the minority targeted by NOM’s mystery donors, but to anyone else in the state court system. Never mind that the state’s governor, Chet Culver — also defeated by a Republican on Tuesday — is unlikely to fill those vacancies on the bench before his term ends in January, further tampering with the due process of law in the state. Never mind that John Adams, one of the founding fathers who people like Gingrich and Sarah Palin like to invoke at any opportunity, believed that a judiciary protected from the political storms that rage around the contentious issues of the day is one of the foundations of a stable democracy:

The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men.

The sweeping ramifications of NOM’s success in Iowa this week are not lost on legal authorities. “What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, told the New York Times. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”

You'll note, via the link above, that "Maggie" says that John Adams, who alive from 1735-1826, probably agreed with her about marriage equality. Putting aside the fact that Maggie Gallagher takes pride in having a point of view that was popular in the late 1700s, I wonder if John Adams agrees with Maggie about slavery too (while Adams refused to own slaves, he did oppose emancipation - how are you on emancipation Maggie?) Read More...

Signorile's conversations with 'GOP-voting gays'

Mike Signorile talked to a number of gay voters who supported GOP candidates last week. He posted the video. It's worth a listen to hear what those gay voters said -- and how Mike responds:

The phones were jammed with people who voted GOP who wanted to offer their explanations for casting votes politicians like David Vitter in Louisiana, for Rand Paul in Kentucky, for Rick Scott in the governor's race in Florida, and for various other, Senate, House and local races.

This clip includes a few of those calls, two from Kentucky and one from Maine, where the caller voted for Paul LePage, the Republican governor-elect who has actually floated that the Maine Human Rights Act -- which gives basic anti-discrimination protection to gays -- should to be revisited, in addition to be against marriage equality, which Maine could have been on the brink of voting in again (after voter rescinded the newly-passed law in a ballot measure) if Republicans didn't take the statehouse and the governorship for the first time since 1964.

I took calls from GOP-voting gays for the full last hour of the show, devoting the time to them (the following day we took calls from those responding) and at the end of the show the lines were still fully lit and many callers could not get through at all.

Listen through to the end. You have to hear Ralph from Maine. Wow. He chose his checkbook over his civil rights -- and admits it. (Good luck adopting that kid in Paul LePage's Maine, Ralph.)
Read More...

General Amos warns of predatory risk posed by gay Marines

On DADT, it gets worse.

The anti-gay rhetoric coming from Pentagon leaders just keeps getting uglier. The biggest offender is Obama's pick to lead the Marines, General James Amos. Yesterday, John posted Amos' latest public attack on repealing the DADT law.

AP printed the full DADT-related quotes from Amos, which basically accuse gay Marines of being sexual predators:

“There’s risk involved,” he said. “I’m trying to determine how to measure that risk.”

The corps is exempt from a Defense Department rule for troops to have private living quarters except at basic training or officer candidate schools. The Marines puts two people in each room to promote a sense of unity.

“There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men — and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers,” General Amos said. “I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”

Intimate? What an insult to the gay men and women who have served in the Marines since its inception. And, there are many. What an absolute denigration of their professionalism and their service to this country.

Not like anyone warned us about this. Oh, wait. GetEQUAL did. Via Brad Luna:

On June 17th, the day of the “closed press”, Oval Office meeting between President Obama and General James Amos, GetEQUAL issued a press release demanding the President discuss DADT during the meeting and then explain directly to the LGBT community where his reported choice for Commandant stood on DADT repeal. In GetEQUAL’s release, Robin McGehee stated, "Following today's meeting, we will be looking toward the White House for open and honest communication with the LGBT community regarding what the General told President Obama his beliefs were on the issue of repeal. We are at too critical of a moment for us to accept a wink and a nod, telling us 'not to worry,' as replacement for a transparent, public record of General Amos' stance." [AMERICAblog Gay posted that entire GetEQUAL press release from June 17th here.]

GetEQUAL was the lone voice that day demanding the President address the issue with Gen. Amos -- and then openly and honestly communicate to DADT repeal advocates and the LGBT community Amos’ beliefs on the issue of repeal. Without a unified front holding the Administration’s feet to the fire, the White House said nothing and moved forward with publicly announcing Amos’ selection. Either they never asked him about DADT repeal; they knew where he stood and chose to not tell the LGBT community -- selecting him anyway; or Amos’ lied about his views.

Whatever happened behind those closed doors...we may never know. However, what we do know is that Amos went on to be nominated, approved -- and yesterday did his best to close the last remaining legislative door to DADT repeal in 2010.

Oh, and President Obama – well, exactly five days after his Oval Office meeting with Amos, he invited a group of LGBT folks large enough to fill up the East Room of the White House over to have cocktails and celebrate Pride month.

And people still wonder why so many in our community are angry and disheartened.

Read More...

In Spain, Pope greeted by small crowds and gay kiss-in

The other day I reported on the head of the Belgium Catholic church assaulting the LGBT community by claiming that AIDS is "justice" for gays. I guess Pope (Ratzinger) Benedict heard and wanted to get in on the action. He went off on women's rights, decried increasing secularism and gay marriage in Spain.

POPE BENEDICT has denounced abortion and gay marriage, recently legalised in Spain, at a Mass to consecrate Barcelona’s Sagrada Familia church as a basilica in another criticism of what he called Spain’s “aggressive secularism”.

Leave it to the Spanish to provide the pontiff with an appropriate welcome!

On Saturday the pontiff visited Santiago de Compostela, where he paid homage at the tomb of Saint James in the cathedral, and later said Mass in the main square before a large congregation – many of whom were pilgrims who had completed their Holy Year pilgrimage. Leader of the conservative opposition Mariano Rajoy, a practising Catholic, was present with his wife and took Communion during the Mass.

In both cities there were smaller crowds than expected; hoteliers, bar and restaurant owners complained over lack of business, and many locals were annoyed at the amount of money spent on the visit. Five hundred gays and lesbians staged a “kiss-in” along the route of the papal motorcade, and other groups demonstrated against the visit and the church’s opposition to contraception, abortion and same-sex marriage.

I'm quite sure the sight of all those handsome Spanish men kissing gave Her Eminence the vapors. ¡Viva España! Read More...

WSJ: DADT repeal 'all but lost'

More confirmation that the Democrats are selling us out. The betrayal is pretty complete at this point. No DADT. No ENDA. NO DOMA. I really hate being right about these things, but Joe and I predicted this was going to happen, but HRC and the apologists told you they knew better.

WSJ:

The drive in Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears all but lost for the foreseeable future, with action unlikely this year and even less likely once Republicans take charge of the House in January.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it.

Failure to act on the policy would heighten tensions between the White House and its supporters in the gay community, many of whom hoped Mr. Obama would have accomplished far more on their agenda by now.

"What has been particularly surprising to me is how broadly the disappointment is felt. It's as if people feel more betrayed than just let down," said Mr. Socarides.

Unbelievable, yet totally expected. Read More...

Homophobe Ike Skelton being talked about as possible Secretary of Defense

I hope this is a joke. Putting one of the lead opponents of repealing DADT as Secretary of Defense? Yeah, that would be a wise move.

But speculation for the top Pentagon job in recent days has included two respected veterans on military matters, both with bipartisan credentials and hands-on experience: John J. Hamre, a deputy defense secretary in the Clinton administration who now leads the Center for Strategic and International Studies while running the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to Mr. Gates; and Ike Skelton, the Missouri congressman who lost his seat last week, and with it the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee.

Then again, Obama appointed a staunch opponent of repealing DADT as the new Marine commandant, so don't for a minute put this past him. Read More...

Democrats reportedly looking at dropping DADT provision to get Defense bill passed

I'd heard the same thing that Kerry Eleveld reports in this article. Not that this is only "an" option, but rather that this is "the" option being considered - to just kiss the DADT repeal effort goodbye.

If HRC and Obama couldn't even get one of their top three promises to our community (DADT, DOMA, ENDA) done with supermajorities in both houses of Congress, a president with a 70% approval rating, and a GOP opposition in utter ruin, then what good are they?

We do not have a friend in the White House, nor do we have an advocacy group in HRC. Neither has our community's best interests at heart. And both are equally responsible for this utter debacle.

Someone asked me the other night if I thought I'd die unequal. It's a good question. And at this point, with the leadership we have in the party and the community, the answer is sadly "yes." Read More...

Bishop Robinson to step down

NYT:

Bishop V. Gene Robinson, whose consecration as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church set off a historic rift in the global Anglican Communion, announced to his New Hampshire diocese on Saturday that he intended to step down.

The reason to depart, he said in a speech delivered at the close of the annual convention of his diocese, is that being at the center of an international uproar has taken a toll on him and on the diocese.

“Death threats, and the now worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as bishop, have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark” and on Episcopalians in the state, he said.

Read More...

Gates urges Congress to repeal DADT

This is good. And it's clear the White House put him up to it, which they should have. I suspect this might be in response to the Pentagon spokesman yet again backing off of DADT repeal the other day.

Now, what has Gates done to help get the DADT compromise passed during lame duck? Has he called any Senators? Remember, up until now, Gates has been sending signals that he doesn't want anything passed until his precious study is done (due December 1). More from Igor Volsky:

The statements mark the first time Gates publicly endorsed efforts to end the policy before the new Republican House is sworn-in in January, something Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell avoided during his press conference on Thursday. Morrell insisted that Gates wanted “a study to take place in advance of that repeal to educate us how to deal” with repeal. “You know from his discussion of this dating back to last February that [the Secretary] believes that it’s better to do this smart than stupid and that this report is very important to us doing this smartly,” Morell said.

Gates’ criticism of Congressional efforts to repeal the ban ahead of the Pentagon’s comprehensive review has slowed down the repeal process. Although he quietly endorsed the compromise repeal amendment incorporated into the defense authorization bill, in April, “Gates sent House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) a letter telling him that he doesn’t want Congress to take any action at all on DADT this year. “I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change,” the letter said. “Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.” Similarly, after District Court Judge Virginia Phillips issued a short-lived moratorium against the policy, Gates criticized the ruling, warning of “enormous consequences” for the troops if repeal were conducted without “careful preparation, and a lot of training.” Congress may still have time to repeal the ban after the study is released on December 1, but it’s unclear that lawmakers will have time to take-up the question before the end of the session.

Read More...

Obama's new pick for Marine Commandant opposes repealing DADT

What idiot chose a guy who vocally opposes one of the President's top policy priorities? The fact is, the White House didn't care enough about DADT to pick a nominee who was on our side, and who supported the President. I doubt a Republican president would ever choose someone who vocally disagreed with him, and who would publicly try to discredit him.

Yet again, this isn't fierce advocacy. It's yet another missed opportunity by the Obama administration. And it's further proof that our civil rights just aren't that important over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Read More...

Excellent analysis of Log Cabin's DADT brief to the Supreme Court

Via TowleRoad:

At the center of LCR's argument to the Supreme Court is that the Ninth Circuit "abused its discretion" when it granted a stay based on incorrect reasoning and a refusal to use the proper legal test for stays. An "abuse of discretion" is a tough standard to meet simply because appellate courts have discretion to issue stays. But what they don't have discretion to do is to grant stays without requiring the party seeking the stay to prove, among other things, a "likelihood of success on the merits." All that means is that in order to properly get the stay at the Ninth Circuit, the government had to prove that it was likely to win its appeal on the merits, likely to keep DADT as good law. The Ninth Circuit, LCR argues, didn't really do that. Nor did the Ninth Circuit engage in the required balancing of harms. Before getting a stay, the government was also supposed to show that any hardship to the military or the government if there were no stay would outweigh any hardship to LCR with a stay. Finally, LCR points out that the Ninth Circuit accepted the government's injury argument based on mere speculation rather than actual evidence.

LCR's argument makes a lot of sense to me, especially since the Ninth Circuit apparently justified its stay on Judge Phillips's decision being at odds with other court decisions on DADT and generally failed to require the government to justify a stay. A stay is an example of "extraordinary relief," meaning that you don't get it just because you want it, you have to prove a lot -- meet a "heavy burden" -- to get it. At the Ninth Circuit, the government arguably did not meet that burden.

Read More...

What happens when your 5 year old boy wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo for Halloween

Great story, though I'm not sure I'd have kept urging my child to do this if he started to worry about being made fun of. You?

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Just as it was heartbreaking to those parents that have lost their children recently due to bullying. IT IS NOT OK TO BULLY. Even if you wrap it up in a bow and call it ‘concern.’ Those women were trying to bully me. And my son. MY son.

Read More...