Republicans love to say they're on the same side of marriage as Obama

Okay, I'm over the Mehlman coverage. He's out. I get it. He's taken up too much of our time already (and he still has to make amends, serious amends.) But, the one positive element of this Mehlman development is that it has caused a discussion about the shifting views of some prominent Republican on gay issues, particularly marriage. And, it also gives those GOPers who aren't with us an opportunity to repeat the talking point that they're on the same side as Obama when it comes to opposing marriage equality. Seems like we'll be seeing a lot of this kind of reporting:

A number of prominent Republicans have broken with their party on the issue, among them former Vice President Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, strategist Steve Schmidt, who was John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign manager, and McCain's daughter Meghan.

But the issue conflicts both parties, as [former RNC Chair Ed] Gillespie, who preceded Mehlman as RNC chairman and who opposes same-sex marriage, pointed out. "Interestingly enough," he said, "I'm aligned with President Obama and his position, and Ken is aligned with Vice President Cheney and his position. It doesn't break cleanly along party lines."

Now, I'd like to think that this kind of statement causes people at the White House to cringe. Unfortunately, I think there are some key players on Obama's team of political geniuses who love reading a quote like that. They really don't want to be on the same side as the gays on this one. Team Obama is so politically tone deaf that I could see this becoming one of their talking points, you know, to show that Obama isn't beholden to the liberals.

Obama looks more and more out of touch on marriage equality every day. He's on the wrong side of history. But, he's on the same side as many GOPers and religious right types. Read More...

Family Research Council has a really bad ad attacking Reid on DADT

Poll after poll shows strong support for the repeal of DADT. We've even got hard core right-winger Liz Cheney on our side. But, the gay-obsessed Family Research Council is undaunted. Those right-wingers are on the air with an ad attacking Harry Reid over DADT repeal. Actually, it attacks "HARRY REID and HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS." The ad looks like something produced for local cable back in the disco era. See for yourself:

Not sure how this ad helps with any normal voter. The gay haters are already on board with Angle.

My guess is that, given the timing, FRC's ad is not so much about the Senate campaign. It's more about trying to make Reid delay consideration of the Defense Authorization bill, which currently includes the DADT repeal legislation. As we noted earlier today, Republicans want to push this issue into the lame duck session in order to kill it. FRC is hoping this ad psyches out Harry Reid. I can't imagine it will work.

This does show that our opponents are willing to go to any lengths to prevent the repeal of DADT. Read More...

Partners of active duty gay and lesbian troops will meet with Pentagon Working Group

We've seen the derogatory surveys. We just heard the derisive comments from a top Pentagon official about separate facilities. But, there's finally a bit of welcome news coming from the Pentagon Working Group. Partners of active duty troops will get to provide some input on September 16th.

Via press release from Servicemembers United:

Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, announced today that the leadership and staff of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will meet with a group of lesbian and gay military partners during Servicemembers United's Military Partners Forum on September 16, 2010. The meeting will be a first of its kind for both the Pentagon and for the military partner community.

"We are honored to be able to facilitate this meeting between the partners of active duty lesbian and gay troops and the leadership and staff of the Comprehensive Review Working Group," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United. "The plight of military partners is something that Servicemembers United has led the way on with our Campaign for Military Partners, and we have been pushing for partner input into the review process for quite some time. We are glad that the Pentagon recognizes the value of input from these silent heroes."

The Campaign for Military Partners was launched by Servicemembers United in 2009 to reach out to, recognize, connect, and support the partners of LGBT military personnel. The online hub for this initiative, www.MilitaryPartners.org, was launched in the spring of 2010.

Read More...

Kerry Eleveld interviews Ken Mehlman about coming out

I'm not sure that there's much earth-shattering in this interview. Though at one point, Mehlman does seem to wish he could take back some of the RNC's past anti-gay actions.

There’s a lot of gays and lesbians and other people who are still angry about the 2004 election and the fact that that those 11 amendments were on the ballot. Is there anything that you would like to say about that in particular?

Look, I have a lot of friends who ask questions and who are angry about it. I understand that folks are angry, I don’t know that you can change the past. As I’ve said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn’t in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can’t change that – it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.
But I understand the anger and I talk to friends about it – it’s something that I hear from a number of friends.

Read More...

House GOPers include DADT repeal in bills to block during lame duck session

The Republican Study Committee, according to its website, "is a group of over 115 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives." Today, I received, via email, a copy of a Republican Study Committee document titled, "The Looming Lame Duck Laundry List Dems Say, We’re not going anywhere!" (I've posted it on scribd.com) It lays out issues that the Republicans fear the Democrats will try to push during the lame duck session, assuming the GOP picks up control of the House. And, it makes clear that the GOPers will try to block those efforts. Here's the intro:

During this month’s special session of the House, a vote was held on a privileged resolution offered by RSC Chairman Price that would prohibit Congress from meeting between Nov. 2 and Jan. 3, except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency, requiring immediate action from Congress. Unfortunately, the measure failed. Apparently, since the resolution failed, the Democratic caucus is in lock step with the Pelosi-Reid agenda and remains committed to the consideration of unpopular legislation like a national energy tax, enormous deficit spending bills, and kickbacks to labor unions.

The big government agenda of Congressional Democrats has shown the majority to be out-of- touch with the needs and concerns of hardworking Americans, and their policies have created a cloud of uncertainty that has kept job creators on the sidelines. A lame duck session is the only way the Democrat majority can succeed in advancing their unpopular agenda because they know they do not have the support of the American people. The RSC has compiled a few examples of what the Democrat majority says it intends to bring to the House floor after the elections.

And, here's the section on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Just last week, it was reported that some Democrats hope to achieve passage of repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding treatment of gays in the military. The House, as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee, has passed legislation to repeal the ban. However, the full Senate has not yet considered legislation because a recent poll revealed the majority of likely voters in the upcoming election do not support a full repeal of DADT. As the election approaches, it is evident that Senate Democrats are avoiding being held accountable for this issue, unwilling to hold a vote to be on record before November.

Some conservatives have expressed concern the proposed amendment to overturn DADT would allow the President to prematurely enact a major cultural change in the military during the operation of two wars. Secretary Gates had requested for Congress to take no action on this issue until the Pentagon could review the implications of repealing DADT, by Dec. 1, 2010, to allow members of the armed services to express their concerns or support for such a measure. Congress should not use a lame duck for social experimentation before the military has had enough time to review the measure.

Where to begin? You have to love that Obama's Secretary of Defense handed these GOPers their strongest talking point.

Also, the poll cited above comes from the Military Culture Coalition, which includes among other Elaine Donnelly's Center for Military Readiness. In the real world, polls from credible sources, show extremely strong support for the repeal. Republicans know that, but they're still willing to do whatever it takes to prevent this law from ending.

The Senate really must take up the Defense authorization bill in September. If it slides to the lame duck session, that only strengthens the hand of repeal opponents. Yesterday, I linked to this blurb at Politico, "IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE HOUSE – Lobbyists predict that defense bills will come to a screeching halt, which could spell doom for the already controversial defense authorization bill." And, I added what John wrote last month about the Democrats who are already bending over backwards to assure Republicans they won't pass legislation during the lame duck session.

The Republicans intend to be bullies about any lame duck legislation.
That's what this RSC document is all about. And, for the most conservative members of the House caucus that includes the repeal of DADT.

If you haven't contacted your Senator about supporting the repeal of DADT, do it now. SLDN has an action center. Servicemembers United is holding a lobby day on September 16th. The pressure is on. Read More...

Another thought on Mehlman from my friend Chris

I'm fascinated by the varying reactions to former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman coming out (most of them, negative). Here is one from my friend Chris (not Chris in Paris):

On Ken Mehlman, I think you are striking exactly the right tone.

My frustration about closeted Republicans has always been a burning irritation at the flagrant disrespect they show for their own constituency – they view them as torch wielding morons to be deployed when needed in support of tax cuts who ask only to be fed the occasional sacrificial minority.

The pawns they manipulate are, however, people like my own family. Who are now, virtually without exception, on board with full equality for gay people – because I took the time to talk to them over the years and treat them with respect. Plus, they love me.

I certainly don’t envy the position Ken Mehlman was in, or is in now – because of his public profile.

When I was on the Hill, I was completely out. I came out in my job interview. So I bopped around thinking that I had dealt with the "closet" monster.

But it still completely freaked me out the first time that somebody came into the office to ask for my help because they had heard that I was gay – and they had not heard it from me. (They got the help – I freaked out privately later.)

I think most straight people don’t understand that coming out is rarely something that you do once and never have to do again, and I know that I hadn’t considered the ramifications of being out to the extent that I was no longer in complete control of the information flow.

So, Ken Mehlman has plunged into the deep end of the pool. I wish he had done it earlier, but I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the guts that it took for him to do this.

Chris

Read More...

On Mehlman, I'm more interested in equality than revenge

I get that people are angry. And they should be. But I don't think the anger negates the other side of the coin, that Ken Mehlman coming out as a gay man is good for our community.

I started AMERICAblog six years ago. But I started in gay politics 17 years ago, when I volunteered with Senator Kennedy's office on the original gays in the military debate. I was angry back then, in the early 90s. Angry that a country I was always told, always believed, was the freest place on earth had relegated me to second class citizenship. But more importantly, stronger than my anger was my desire for full equality. I didn't get involved in gay politics out of a desire to get even. I got involved in gay politics because I want my equal rights.

And that takes us to Ken Mehlman. A lot of people in the community have reacted to Mehlman's coming out with scorn and derision, and rightfully so. I get that people are livid about finding out that a gay man was overseeing the Republican party at a time when the party was (and still is) supremely homophobic - a time when they were pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution, something Mehlman himself once agreed with. Joe dug this little Mehlman nugget up yesterday, for example:

"I think the issue was injected when a liberal court in Massachusetts said they were going to redefine a 200 year old institution in this country by judicial fiat," said Mehlman, who also endorses a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- political catnip for the Christian Right.

Pretty disgusting stuff, to say the least.

The following comment a reader left on the post I wrote last night about this issue is typical of the community's response:

I sincerely hope this article is a massive joke. If so, haha! If not, please read a list of the things this man pushed forward during the Bush-era to seriously harm the gay community and tell me again I should be happy or supportive this man crawled out of the closet.

Mehlman had incredible political power and influence, who could have just as easily led a quiet closeted life in no way harming the LGBT community. But instead he worked with the homophobic religious right, orchestrated successful anti-gay policies and helped bigoted politicians enter into office for his own damn profit.

Oh, boo hoo! Coming out is so hard~!

I get the anger. Trust me, I was pissed at him too, and knew he was gay probably long before he did. That's why we routinely posted Mehlman's photo on the blog (Mehlman Mondays, we called it, if anyone recalls), and routinely called him out for being a closet heterosexual (i.e., a supposedly straight man who was afraid to even say he was straight). So I get the anger, and the sense of betrayal that someone gay could oversee an organization that gay-baited our civil rights for their own political profit. Someone mentioned Roy Cohn. And it's not an unfair comparison, for someone so high level. A large part of the reason I launched AMERICAblog in 2004 was my anger at the Republican party, and George Bush in particular, for their embrace of the Federal Marriage Amendment. And Mehlman was Bush's campaign director.

So I get it. But maybe I'm just more political than most. So, naturally, when I hear the news of Mehlman's coming out, I'm trying to think of how this revelation might aid our battle for our civil rights.

It's a given that Mehlman was involved in horribly anti-gay politics as the head of the Republican party. But now he's coming out and embracing the cause of marriage equality. And from what I hear privately, from friends who know, he's for real - he's helping us out, and in a big way.

So can't we be pissed at Ken Mehlman for doing really bad things to our community, and at the same time welcome his desire to begin to make amends? Should we refuse his offer to become an ally because of his admittedly atrocious past? If we accept his offer, does it mean that we somehow dishonor the past? And if we turn down his offer, are we not sending the message that we never want anti-gay Republicans to come over to our side?

From my perspective, we should recognize an opportunity when it's dropped in our lap, regardless of our rightful and righteous anger - or perhaps not regardless, but rather alongside. I simply want my civil rights more than I want revenge. It's the way good politics works, I think - and it's the way politics used to work in this country - putting the potential to move forward today ahead of your legitimate anger about yesterday. It's something the White House, for example, doesn't understand about us. They think we criticize them - and we do, a lot - because we either hate the President, are the kind of people who will never be happy, or simply because we're nuts. What they don't understand is that our anger is not irrational, and it's not motivated by a desire to exact any kind of retribution against the President. We beat up President Obama because we want him to keep his promises to our community, and we truly believe that the only way those promises are going to be kept, in full, is by keeping the pressure on the President. We don't beat him up because he's pissed us off, because it feels good to do so, or out of any sense of revenge. We beat him up because we think it's a wise tactical move towards achieving our political goals. It's the same analysis I try to make on any political move I make. Will it serve the larger goal or not?

Ditto with Mehlman. If someone can explain to me how it advances our civil rights to spurn Mehlamn's offer of help, I'm all ears. Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree with Joe's post of last night, reminding people that the media is engaging in some pretty bizarre whitewashing of Mehlman's actual anti-gay rights record. It serves no purpose to lie about what Mehlman did in the past, and it does a disservice to the memory of those he harmed. But I truly believe, with all my years of successful activism to back me up, that while anger is justified, it's only a useful political tool when it advances the cause. Anger for the sake of anger isn't why I'm here, and it's not why I'm in politics. I'm here to advocate for our full and equal civil rights. And if Ken Mehlman thinks he can help me do that, he's welcome to try.

I remember, back in the early 90s when I was working with Kennedy's office on gay rights issues, the shock of seeing Kennedy's staff working with conservative Republicans who were willing to help on gay issues, regardless of how bad those Republicans were in the past, or even the present, on other issues near and dear to the left. I was there when Kennedy got Barry Goldwater on board to support the repeal of the military's gay ban. I'm sure some at the time loathed Goldwater, and couldn't believe that Ted Kennedy was welcoming his support. But Goldwater's support on the issue, even though we didn't win in the end, was a blow to the forces of hate. Kennedy welcomed it, and I welcome it. ("It doesn't matter if you are straight, just if you can shoot straight" anyone?) In retrospect, I challenge anyone to argue that it was wrong, immoral, or politically unhelpful for Ted Kennedy to get Barry Goldwater on board. If you agree with me on this one, tell me how Mehlman was any different than Goldwater, in terms of working for the forces of darkness?

And it didn't stop with Goldwater. I remember how Kennedy's staff even worked with Jesse Helms' office. Yes, you read that right.

It seems that Helms had some staffers who weren't entirely thrilled with their boss's anti-gay agenda. At times, those staffers would leak the text of an upcoming Helms anti-gay amendment to Kennedy's office the night before a key Senate debate. The only reason Kennedy got the amendment ahead of time - something which was incredibly helpful to our efforts to stop Helms' hate - was because Kennedy's staff was smart enough, and politically savvy enough, to reach out to, and form a relationship with, an office that was trying to destroy them, and us. Again, I challenge anyone to explain to me, and the rest of the community, how it was a bad idea to get a copy of Helms' hate amendments ahead of time. In fact, it was brilliant.

Then there's Ted Olson. Boy oh boy did I get an earful when I welcomed the legal prince of darkness into our fold by writing that it was a good thing he was representing us in our legal battle against Prop 8. People were rightfully ticked at the guy. But I remember one reader telling me Olson was a fifth columnist, only pretending to be on our side, and some day, in court, he'd turn on us! Didn't quite work out that way, and today Ted Olson is a hero in the gay community. He may still think himself a conservative Republican, he may still be one, but he's now done more than most of us to advance the cause of gay equality. And no one reasonable questions the benefit of having Olson on our side.

Sometimes you work with people you don't like in order to achieve the greater good. Or at least you should. Sometimes they've seen the light, sometimes they haven't. But if your interests coincide, and they're not going to stab you in the back, why not accept their offer of help? Does it really dishonor the past to acknowledge the harm they've caused at the same time you welcome the good they can do?

I firmly believe that it advances our cause more to embrace Ken Mehlman than to shun him. That's my theory. I challenge you, rather than simply posting ad hominem attacks on me in the comments, to respond to that one simple point. Tell me why embracing Mehlman will not advance our civil rights agenda, and tell me why shunning him will. The man is ridiculously well connected, and a major power in the Republican party, even after leaving the RNC. It's not like people lose their contacts once they move on to another job. On the contrary, it's the reason people because such rich and powerful lobbyists after working in government - precisely because they retain much of the contacts and influence they had before.

Ken Mehlman now wants to use his contacts and influence to help me win the right to marry. I don't care if he ripped the heads off baby bunnies back in 2004, if he's willing to help us now. My enemy's enemy is my friend. And if Ken Mehlman wants to be my friend, and start on the path towards making up for all the bad things he did in the past, I'm not going to spurn his help, and set our movement and community back by missing this incredible opportunity, simply because the guy (rightfully) pisses me off. How do you think the religious right is reacting to the news that Mehlman isn't just gay, but he's actually helping us in our battle for full marriage equality - helping us challenge Prop 8? I'm guessing that they're not calling us suckers for accepting his help. They're most assuredly livid at, and scared to death of, the impact he's going to have on behalf of our rights.

The best revenge is living well, they say. It's also living free. If Ken Mehlman wants to help me become a full and equal citizen of these United States, he's welcome to try. Read More...

A letter to the Pentagon about DADT from Joseph Rocha's dad, Jose

As we all know, the Pentagon is currently surveying military spouses about the repeal of DADT. To provide a fuller picture of how DADT impacts families, SLDN is releasing "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."

And, wow. Today's letter is really powerful. Joseph Rocha's dad, Jose, kicked him out of the house when he learned that his son is gay. Today, Jose wrote a letter to the Pentagon Working Group about the need to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

August 26, 2010

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

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

Dear Mr. Johnson and General Ham:

I am a heavy machinery truck driver; I have been all of my life. A blue collar American who raised my son, Joseph Rocha, in a Roman Catholic home with strong Spanish values, after his mother lost custody for drug abuse. Throughout school Joseph turned out to be an awarded scholar, athlete and leader. I did my best to provide a good home for him. But, I wasn’t prepared for my only boy to turn out gay.

Early on in his senior year, at 17, he left the house on one condition: that he never return.

I learned through my wife that he was excelling quickly in the military. He was promoted twice in his first year and was hand-picked for explosive detection school. We had no idea that during his 28 months in the Middle East, he was being abused by his superiors because he wouldn’t tell them if he was gay or not. He only ever called home to tell my wife he loved working with the dogs and about his aspirations of becoming an officer.

He sent gifts to his kid siblings for every single holiday and called them religiously. He was a hero to my girls. I struggled through our silence knowing that I was missing out on my son. As it sank in that Joseph might be injured or killed in the service, it became clear how irrelevant who he wants to love is. On a phone call home to congratulate me for my birthday, I told my son for the first time that I was truly proud of him and asked him to live his life for himself, not for me or anyone else.

After receiving a Naval Marine Corp Achievement Medal for his service overseas and being accepted to Naval Academy Preparatory School to go on to the United States Naval Academy and earn a commission, Joseph was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Recently, just after his mother’s death, I asked him what he would be doing this year when he becomes the first in our family to graduate from college. I was surprised when he said that he wants to serve again. I asked him why he would go back after all they did to him. I asked him if he was prepared to go back to the Middle East. He replied that he was never meant to be done serving.

Joseph contributed to my family and to the families of each of his co-workers: loyalty, respect and service. My son had always lead by example and in coming out he has taught his siblings pride and his favorite value, integrity.

I am proud of my son and it makes me sick now to read the Navy documents detailing the abuse he stomached in order to try and save his career. He is a brave young man and a patriot. I know now first hand that the old ways are not always right and I ask that you encourage your superiors to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Please allow my son, Joseph C. Rocha, and countless like him, to resume their military careers.

Sincerely,
Jose J. Rocha

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

Joseph's letter to President Obama is here. Read More...