'We told you so...' - The Gays re: General McChrystal

Who could have ever guessed that if the administration let the troops believe they were helping to craft policy by polling them, and continuing to defer to troops, instead of setting a firm command climate, like Eisenhower and Truman, on an issue like "Don't Ask Don't Tell," that one of them would decide to go renegade on the civilian leadership and publicly criticize them?

After Mr. Obama's was sworn into office, McChrystal felt the new president looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" while meeting with a dozen senior military officials in a Pentagon room known as the Tank, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

Following McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with the president, an aide said the general left disappointed.

"It was a 10-minute photo op," the adviser said. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

There have been plenty of us who pointed out how the civilian leadership needs to assert their power over the military. The McChrystal embarrassment could have been avoided if Obama had demanded respect regarding his policies, ordered them to be implemented and expected them to salute smartly and "make it so" like the military is supposed to operate in our Democracy. Polling G.I. Johny's Mommy and Daddy as to whether or not DADT should be overturned doesn't exactly engender respect, now does it?

I think all the smartest guys in the room need to read what John wrote back in May, "Admiral Mullen now subtly undercutting the Commander-in-Chief as well" and make a change in how Obama handles his job as Commander-in-Chief if they want to nip further insubordination in the bud.

Gates and Mullen have been permitted to give their input on this policy, their Commander-in-Chief has made his decision, and our elected representatives in Congress have spoken. Unless Gates and Mullen think we're living in some banana republic, where it's okay for the military to undercut their elected leaders, both men should STFU. And the same goes for this absurdly patronizing argument that we simply must consult the troops before making any changes. No we mustn't. We don't consult the troops on anything, just as we don't consult every employee at DOT when making new aviation policy. It's frankly, none of their business, and undercuts our democracy by even suggesting that they should somehow trump our elected officials, be they in the White House or Congress. They should sit back and wait for their orders, and when they get them, salute and say "yes, sir" - that's it.

I was in the military and that is exactly how it is supposed to be done. If the Obama Administration wants more of the same embarrassing eruptions of insubordination then they need to keep allowing the military brass to call the shots on issues like "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Read More...

An LGBT perspective on the Pride event at Foggy Bottom

One of our readers, who serves as a State Department Foreign Service Officer, provided a first-hand account of today's State Department Pride event. I have to hand it to Secretary Clinton. She's been the most forceful -- and unapologetic -- member of the Obama administration official when it comes to LGBT equality. And, that leadership has been well received by her Department:

For a gay State Department Foreign Service Officer such as myself, Secretary Clinton's appearance and seemingly heartfelt remarks at the State Department's LGBT Pride Month event were no less than remarkable. Not too long ago, we had an Administration that actually opposed acknowledging LGBT human rights as an issue to be considered by the international community. Today we had a Secretary of State stating clearly that not only should LGBT human rights be included in U.S. foreign policy, but that U.S. Ambassadors and diplomats should proactively support the efforts of non-governmental groups and individuals working to this end around the world. While she didn't say it, I know the Secretary's or State Department's interpretation of LGBT human rights wouldn't mean support for same-sex marriage (though I and practically everyone I know would argue that should be included), but rather the basic freedom of assembly and expression, and the freedom from fear that many LGBT people do not enjoy around the world. Not the full Monte, but still an important step forward.

Secretary Clinton similarly went further in bringing transgender issues to the forefront. She noted the State Department's recent decision to revise passport regulations to allow transgender Americans to change their gender more easily on their passports. She also announced that the State Department would change its own non-discrimination policy to explicitly include gender identity as a protected category. Her announcement drew applause. The challenge will now be to implement this new inclusive policy in a State Department that has never had a visible transgender diplomat.

Something else apparent in the auditorium today was how much the situation for LGBT diplomats has changed with time. Twenty years ago a Foreign Service Officer could lose his or her job for being gay, and there were active investigations against a number of employees on this count. Ten years ago, the situation was better, though few personnel were clearly out; during Gay Pride month it was edgy just to have the DC Gay and Lesbian Chorus sing in the State Department cafeteria (and most of our straight colleagues stood safely away, lest they be confused with the gay folks). Today, there were hundreds of people applauding at a standing room only event where the Secretary of State, with gay Foreign Service Officers at her side, loudly proclaimed that "gay rights are human rights" and should be firmly embedded in U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary Clinton also proudly noted her record of improving the situation for LGBT personnel in her agency. On that count she is definitely right. The State Department -- and by extension USAID -- has been ahead of all the federal agencies in expanding benefits for same-sex partners of personnel. Much of the package announced by President Obama in June 2009 was actually developed at the State Department. While many LGBT Americans at that time were disappointed with the the President's announcement, State Department and USAID LGBT personnel were jubilant as it gave diplomatic passports to partners, compensated for travel costs to transport our families overseas, and allowed for partners to work in embassies overseas and receive training at the Foreign Service Institute. At the core, it was Hillary's leadership that made this happen.

I'd also like to give props to the State Department and USAID LGBT employee group - Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA). U.S. diplomats come and go from Washington, and hence the leadership of this group has changed often, in many ways keeping it dynamic. And indeed diplomats are hired and promoted for their ability to influence governments, perhaps adding to the group's effectiveness. While a number of federal agencies struggled to resuscitate LGBT employee organizations after eight difficult years when many died out, GLIFAA remained strong and independent and was ready to come forward with proposals when the Administration changed. Within days of her arrival on the job in 2009, GLIFAA delivered Clinton a letter signed by 2200 personnel requesting same-sex partner benefits, after having already delivered its specific proposals to the Obama transition team. Some six months later, the State Department was the first federal agency to begin providing these benefits. Not a bad situation to be in at all.

Read More...

'When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one'

A tribute to Leonard Matlovich who died on June 22, 1988:
Read More...

Watch the President's speech to the LGBT cocktail party

I'm sure this will be a lovely speech. Wondering if he'll tell us when the DADT discharges will end; how he's going to help us pass ENDA; and, if he's ever going to do anything to repeal DOMA. I suspect not. But, we can always HOPE, right? And, for the record, all we're asking is that the President follow through on his campaign promises. We're not asking him to perform marriages on the White House lawn (although that would be nice.)

Just keep the promises.

Read More...

Gay couple dances at Swedish royal wedding

Perhaps not earth shattering news, but then again, still kind of cool. Read More...

Blackhawks will bring Stanley Cup to Chicago Pride parade

Very cool.

Is the ultimate game of testosterone going to dispatch a Blackhawk with the Stanley Cup in tow to the Gay Pride Parade this weekend?

You betcha!

Sneed has learned Blackhawks President John McDonough is rerouting the Stanley Cup from the NHL draft in L.A. to the parade Sunday . . . and Blackhawk defenseman Brent Sopel has volunteered to represent the team.

"I am honored to do it," said Sopel, who will be accompanied by wife, Kelly, and his four kids, Jacob, 12, Lyla, 8, Jayla, 6, and Paul, 20, whom they adopted three years ago after Paul's parents died within six months of each other.

Read More...

Top general's aide refers to dinner with French minister as 'f---ing gay'

General McChrystal is our top general in Afghanistan. Here is what one of his aides told Rolling Stone:

Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides. "Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

Read More...

Dem Congress isn't pro-gay?

Well that's a disturbing comment from HRC's spokesman. If Congress isn't pro-gay - and this is probably the best Congress we're going to have for years to come - then why is the DNC constantly asking the gay community for money to keep this Congress in power? From AP:

"The reason why these policy changes are important is because we do not have ironclad LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) majorities in either house of Congress," said Fred Sainz, a vice president at the Human Rights Campaign, Washington's largest gay rights organization.

"People wrongly assume that having Democratic majorities in Congress means that your legislative goals will be met. That's not the case," Sainz said.

No, what people assume is that the gay community is a powerhouse that is respected in Washington, and that the tens of millions of dollars that HRC spends on an annual basis has influence on the legislative process. What people assume is that when HRC spends so much time and energy pandering to the White House so that the President will speak at their dinner, that the President's appearance means HRC has power in Washington. That's what people assume.

So now we're being told that this isn't the case?

What's unfortunate is that HRC is now using the White House line ("oh but for the Congress we could fulfill all your dreams"). Well, Congress ain't gonna get any better for a long time. So if HRC is giving the President and the Congress a pass on our legislative agenda - and that is what they just did, they gave the President and the congressional leadership cover by "admitting" that we can't expect them to keep their legislative promises - then what's the point of all of this? We now can only expect these executive branch half-measures that will likely be overturned by the next President? That's all we're getting?

The interminable excuses, while we have, for the first time in a generation, a Democratic president and Congress, are maddening. If HRC, the President and the Congress couldn't pull it off with the overwhelming majorities in Congress, and the absurdly popular presidency, we handed them in 2008, then we really are doomed. Read More...

Will Obama hear complaints tonight from LGBT leaders?

Today's Washington Post features another round of unequivocal praise for Obama from HRC and CAP's Winnie Stachelberg. (She's a self-appointed leader of the LGBT movement, having concocted the controversial and complicated "certification" language in the DADT repeal compromise.) Of course, the inside-the-beltway access-driven leaders offer praise for the Obama administration. They view that as part of their mission, unfortunately.

But, the article notes that there are many who aren't happy with the cautious small steps the President is taking. After all, he vowed to be a "fierce advocate" -- and he's not. The Post reporter predicts Obama will hear complaints tonight at the cocktail party:

Obama remains under pressure from some members of the gay community to move more quickly and forcefully on the major battles with Congress. A group of activists interrupted his speech at a Democratic fundraiser in California last month, yelling that he should do more to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

He will probably hear similar complaints Tuesday night, when he hosts a Gay and Lesbian Pride Month event at the White House for the second year in a row.

Will Obama hear complaints tonight?

Will any of the LGBT leaders from the state organizations challenge Obama to actually follow through on his campaign promises? The DC-based groups don't do it. But, will our state leaders push the President?

We'll see. But, the White House counts on the fact that people who get invited to events get so excited and intimidated that they wouldn't dare to ask hard questions. It works on the leaders who are based in DC, you know, the ones who should be immune to it. So, they probably have no worries about people coming in from around the country.

If anyone is so inclined to ask the President any questions, there are plenty of issues to ask about. Will he ever stop defending DOMA and DADT in the courts? (And remember, he doesn't have to.) When will the DADT discharges end? Will he lobby for ENDA? Why wouldn't he help us last fall in Maine -- and why did OFA undermine our efforts?

HRC and CAP won't challenge the White House. Hopefully, some state leaders will. We'll see. Read More...

HRC, still in bed with Obama

As if there were any doubt...

Still, Fred Sainz, a spokesperson for the D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, says that attention must be paid to the fact that significant strides are being made. “We have largely been in the wilderness the past 40 years since Stonewall. To see this much progress in one and half years makes your head spin.”

With all due respect to Fred, who I've met, and who seems like a nice guy - his head may be spinning over Easter Egg rolls and the ambassador to Samoa, but ours are not.

Yes, the President has accumulated a wonderful list of B, C and D rate accomplishments, just as we predicted he would. And if the year were 1992, my head would be spinning too. Just think of it, the President of the United States has made all sorts of mostly minor policy changes that require the spending of no political capital and can be undone by the next president with the simple stroke of a pen. That is hardly head-spinning equality. In fact, I think one could argue that Bill Clinton, with all his foibles, caused more gay heads to spin in 1992 than Barack Obama has in 2010. Even with DOMA and DADT, which were clearly huge fails, it was Bill Clinton who appointed gay ambassadors, and gay senior administration officials, when it still wasn't cool. It was Bill Clinton who put a non-discrimination policy for federal employees into place, back when marriage was but a dream. And it was Bill Clinton who had an openly gay, and openly HIV positive, man give a keynote speech at his convention... in 1992. That was eighteen years ago.

It was a lot harder to be pro-gay in 1992 than it is today. So why do so many of our national groups insist on judging President Obama as if the year were still 1992? As if his growing list of small accomplishments, which would be something in 1992, is somehow something in 2010?

Yes, he signed the hate crimes bill. Something that we all thought was a big deal 12 years ago. Back then, the Hate Crimes bill was the be all and end all of gay rights legislation. In 1998, we knew we'd never be getting married, we knew we'd never be getting ENDA, and we knew we'd never be seeing the end of DADT. Hate Crimes was it. But today, it's no longer "it." Today, Hate Crimes legislation, important as it is, was eclipsed by legislation many in the community consider to be even more important - repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA. President Obama adding his signature to the hate crime bill was nice, but Congress did the work - a good Congress ago (it had previously passed and overcome a GOP filibuster). So spare us the talk of how he moved earth and sun to get the bill passed. He didn't. And no one - NO ONE - has yet explained how he did.

What President Obama has done is given us a growing list of small tidbits. He's given us the table scraps of the civil rights movement. Tasty morsels to be sure, but hardly the meal we were promised.

And one final point about HRC's incessant need to kiss the President's ass. They are doing serious damage to the work that all of you have done to pressure the President to do even the small things he has done so far. We wouldn't have half of what we do have had we not beaten the bejesus out of him. And what does HRC do every time? They publicly tell the President that he's doing a fine job - best ever, in fact. The message is clear: Don't worry about the big promises you haven't done, since we already called you the most pro-gay president ever.

At some point, HRC has to stop undercutting the battle for our civil rights, and stop seeing itself as an appendage of the Democratic party. I'm sure the White House has promised more appearances at HRC fundraisers in exchange for HRC's ongoing pandering, but it would be nice if HRC would, even just once, get a promise from the White House to do something big for all of us. Not just a promise to help HRC.

UPDATE: I see that the news last night that the Family and Medical Leave Act was being extended to gay couples isn't exactly 100% true. Only the parts pertaining to taking care of your partner's children have been extended - not the parts about taking care of your partner. Why is the President splitting the baby in half and not providing us full and equal rights under the law? Because of DOMA. You remember DOMA. It's the law that the President promised to repeal, and then promptly forgot once he got sworn into office, at the same time DNC officials privately laughed at us for suggesting that the President keep his promise. As I wrote last night, never believe anything you hear from these guys until you read the fine print - there will always, always, be a hidden compromise, and you will never, ever get everything you were promised. Read More...