Dan Savage on Mitch McConnell taking Obama's word that he's a Christian

Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Mitch McConnell talked about Obama's religion:

"The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute,"

Dan Savage provides the only appropriate response. Read More...

SU deconstructs the Pentagon's 'poorly designed, biased and derogatory survey instruments'

When the Pentagon's survey was released over the weekend, Servicemembers United's Executive Director Alex Nicholson issued a statement, but promised a more thorough analysis today. That analysis has arrived in the form of a briefing memo titled, Assessment of the 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Service Member Spouses, which can be found here as a pdf. The actual survey is embedded in this post.

Here's the statement from Alex, which accompanied the release of the briefing memo:

"While it is wise to solicit and consider military spouse input on policy changes that will have a major impact on military families, it is extremely unwise to do so for issues that have minimal impact on spouses while also using poorly designed, biased and derogatory survey instruments," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "The Pentagon should be concerned with real family readiness issues like excessive deployments, inadequate mental health screenings and support, low troop pay, reductions in housing subsidies for military families, and inadequate spousal employment support instead of spending $4.4 million on a politically-motivated and unnecessary survey about gays and lesbians."

And, here's an excerpt from the memo:

14) Question 29: “Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and your spouse is deployed. Would the presence of a partner of a gay or lesbian Service member affect how often you attend deployment-support activities?” (and one similar question – question 35)

This has to be the single most insensitive, disrespectful, selfish, and just plain cruel question in the entire spouse survey. The partners of gay and lesbian troops who are deployed hurt, worry, cry, stress, and suffer just as much – if not more, because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – than the partners and spouses of straight troops. To even entertain the idea, much less suggest it, that fleeting discomfort of straight partners and spouses should lead to denial of support for the agonizing partners of gay and lesbian troops is simply horrendous, cruel, and inhumane. Keep in mind that even the girlfriends and boyfriends of straight troops get some support during their partners’ deployments. So a straight one- night-stand is given a higher priority under current military policy – and this question – than a devoted partner of 20 years.

I stand by what I wrote on Saturday in my first post about the spouse's survey:

You have to wonder how the hell the Pentagon came up with these questions. Makes me think Elaine Donnelly had a hand in writing the survey. And, we've been told repeatedly, the Pentagon study is about "how" to implement repeal, not "if." But, everything we see from the Pentagon seems to be a lesson in how not to implement repeal.

Read More...

In Arizona, Randy Parraz is the pro-equality candidate for Senate

Tomorrow, there's a Democratic primary for Senate in Arizona. There are two main contenders: Rodney Glassman and Randy Parraz. If I lived in Arizona, I'd vote for Parraz. I met him at Netroots Nation and was impressed. Glassman was the anointed candidate, but his campaign has been a disappointment. Parraz supports full marriage equality. Glassman won't state a position.

The Blue America PAC is on the air with an ad for Parraz.

Watch Randy talk about LGBT issues, including marriage: "You get what I get. It's that simple."

John McCain is going to win the GOP Senate primary against right-wing butt head JD Hayworth.

And, Randy Parraz is on the same side as Cindy and Meghan McCain. Read More...

What Does Obama Really Think About Gay Marriage? A Telling Timeline

From James Downie at the New Republic:

In the gay marriage debate, President Obama says that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples. But has this always been his view? A look back at his statements on gay marriage, from his days as a state senate candidate until his time in the White House, suggests that Obama's public stance has shifted notably.

He has a list of Obama's quotes over time, be sure to check it out. Then sign our open letter to President Obama urging him to publicly support full marriage equality for gay couples. Read More...

On marriage equality, 'Obama is running out of time to stay ahead of history'

Team Obama wants to avoid dealing with the issue of marriage equality. We've been told repeatedly that the President is opposed to same-sex marriage -- and, as David Axelrod informed us after the Prop. 8 decision, Obama is sticking to that position. But, every day, Obama looks more and more out of touch on this issue. And, it's being noticed.

Richard Just has an op-ed on Obama's "illogical and cynical" position on same-sex marriage. He provides context by looking at President Woodrow Wilson's failure to support suffrage. It was the right thing to do and he didn't do it. That has damaged Wilson's legacy. History could be repeating itself:

An evasive stance on a controversial civil rights issue from a liberal president; an insistence that the issue is primarily local, rather than national, in character; a complete failure of sincerity, nerve, and will: If these things sound familiar in 2010, it is because Barack Obama is taking exactly the same approach on gay marriage.

My colleague James Downie has assembled a fascinating timeline of Obama’s statements on gay marriage over the past 14 years, stretching from 1996 to earlier this month, when the White House responded to a judge’s ruling on Prop 8 by reiterating that it opposes same-sex marriage. What the timeline shows is a pattern that can only be described as illogical and cynical. Obama argues that he is against gay marriage while also opposing efforts like Prop 8 that would ban it. He justifies this by saying that state constitutions should not be used to reduce rights. (His exact words: “I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you’re playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.”)

Obama appears to be saying that it is fine to prohibit gay people from getting married, as long as the vehicle for doing so is not a constitution. Presumably, then, he supports the numerous states that have banned same-sex marriage through other means, without resorting to a constitutional amendment? If so, he might be the only person in the country to occupy this narrow, and frankly absurd, slice of intellectual terrain. Obama has also said he favors civil unions rather than gay marriage because the question of where and how to apply the label “marriage” is a religious one. This argument makes even less sense than his stance on state constitutions, since marriage, for better or for worse, is very much a government matter.

Obama and those around him seem unaware that all of this is a problem; a look at some of the lessons from Wilson’s experience might help to clarify why they ought to reconsider. The first lesson is that history does not look kindly on this type of presidential conduct. Wilson is today remembered as a near-great president, but his indifference on questions of gender and race is more than a bit unflattering in retrospect. Second, like Wilson, Obama is running out of time to stay ahead of history. In 1912, women’s suffrage was hardly an outlandish cause; one of the three major presidential contenders that year, Teddy Roosevelt, came out in favor of it, even as Wilson remained mum. Similarly, on gay marriage, Obama is now to the right of Laura Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and, according to a new CNN poll, 52 percent of the American people.

There's time to fix this, of course. But, don't hold your breath. It's going to be an issue for the Obama reelection campaign, which will probably be led by Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina. He already made a mess of DADT repeal. It's hard to see how the Obama campaign will handle marriage equality any better. But, it's going to be tough to generate enthusiasm (and money) when Obama is still taking the same illogical, cynical and absurd position on marriage. Read More...

A letter to the Pentagon about DADT from Lynne Kennedy, a military spouse

The Pentagon is surveying military spouses about the repeal of DADT. Servicemembers United calls that survey "insulting and derogatory." SLDN wants the Pentogon Working Group to hear from spouses and family members who have been directly impacted by DADT. From SLDN:

With the Pentagon’s family survey now in the field, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), will release a letter each day this week from family members and spouses of former service members impacted by DADT. As the Pentagon reaches out to 150,000 straight couples on how their lives are impacted, these letters will share the perspective of those forced to serve under this law alongside their loved ones. SLDN is urging supporters of repeal to call, write, and schedule in-district meetings with both their senators as the defense budget, which contains the repeal amendment, moves to the floor just weeks from now. www.sldn.org/action.

Here's the first letter. It's from Lynne Kennedy, the partner of Capt. Joan Darrah, U.S. Navy (Ret.):

General Carter F. Ham
Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group

Hon. Jeh C. Johnson
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group

Dear General Ham and Mr. Johnson:

In 1990 – while working as a reference librarian at the Library of Congress -- I met Joan Darrah, an active duty Naval Officer. I already knew about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but I soon woke up to the harsh reality that loved ones of gay and lesbian family members are forced to serve in silence, too.

Over the years, Joan had adjusted to living two lives -- in the closet at work and out after hours. For me, it was a bit of an adjustment as I had been fortunate to work for an employer who valued my skills and expertise and realized that my being a lesbian in no way detracted from my ability to do a great job.

I knew that Joan could be deployed at any moment. She may be away from home for two or three years. I realized that being with an active duty military officer was even more constricting than I could have possibly imagined and I worried constantly about Joan’s well being. Yet, through it all, I knew our relationship was worth the compromises. I knew we had to make it work for Joan to continue to serve our Country.

There were so many things that we had to be careful about. For example, Joan had asked that I not call her at work unless it was truly an emergency. When we were out in public if Joan saw someone from work, I learned to “disappear,” until Joan’s co-worker moved on. We didn’t dare go to nice restaurants on Valentine’s Day or even Saturday nights. We could not show any familiarity while out in public. I went to parties at colleagues' homes alone lest a guest I didn't know learn that Joan was in the Navy.

The events of September 11, 2001, caused us both appreciate more fully the true impact of DADT on our lives and the reality of our mutual sacrifices. At 8:30 a.m. that morning, Joan went to a meeting in the Pentagon. At 9:30 a.m., she left that meeting. At 9:37 a.m., the plane flew into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space that Joan had left less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of her colleagues.

In the days and weeks that followed, Joan went to several funerals and memorial services for her co-workers who had been killed. Most people attended these services with their spouses whose support was critical at this difficult time, yet Joan was forced to go alone, even though I really wanted to be with her to provide support.

As the numbness began to wear off, it hit me how incredibly alone I would have been had Joan been killed. The military is known for how it pulls together and helps people; we talk of the "military family," which is a way of saying we always look after each other, especially in times of need. But, none of that support would have been available for me, because under DADT, I didn’t exist.

In fact, I would have been one of the last people to know had Joan been killed, because nowhere in her paperwork or emergency contact information had Joan dared to list my name.

Whenever I hear Joan recount the events of that day, I relive it and realize all over again how devastated I would have been had she been killed. I also think of the partners of service members injured or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are unable to get any support from the military and they must be careful about the amount of support they offer to their closeted service member loved ones.

The events of September 11th caused us to stop and reassess exactly what was most important in our lives. During that process, we realized that this discriminatory law was causing us to make a much bigger sacrifice than either of us had ever admitted.

Eight months later, in June 2002, Joan retired from the U.S. Navy, and I retired from the Library of Congress. If it wasn’t for DADT, we might both still be serving in our respective positions.

Lynne Kennedy


CC:
U.S. Sen. Carl M. Levin, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
U.S. Sen. John S. McCain, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

Read More...