American Family Association wants the killer whale stoned to death

I'd like to see them jump in the water and try. Seriously, I'd really like to see it. Read More...

VIDEO: Senate Dems introduce DADT repeal

Read More...

Fred Phelps' religious right nuts were in DC today

Protesting marriage. Too bad. Civil rights won. Read More...

Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell may run for Congress in New York

There's been a lot of political news from New York this week. A lot. Turns out Charlie Rangel's ethical troubles may be creating an opportunity for one of the state's openly gay politicos.

Danny O'Donnell, the openly gay member of the New York Assembly (and a good friend of AMERICAblog), is thinking about throwing his hat into the ring for the Congressional seat held by Charlie Rangel:

Here's a new name to add to the list of people eyeing a run for Rep. Charlie Rangel's seat should he decide not to seek re-election this fall: Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell.

"I certainly like being a legislator, I think I'm good at being a legislator; if a vacancy occurs in the congressional district where I live, I will certainly consider it," the Manhattan Democrat told me during a brief interview just now in the Assembly chamber.

If elected, O'Donnell would be the first openly gay member of the state's congressional delegation.

O'Donnell noted all but one ED of his district is located within Rangel's district and pointed out that he has lived on the same block for more than 20 years.

Read More...

Adorable video of gay couples lining up to apply for marriage licenses in DC

The couples are adorable, and wonderfully diverse. First couple was two black lesbians who couldn't stop smiling. Next we saw some women from West Virginia. Then two older guys. Then two Asian women. A wonderfully diverse scene.

Read More...

Lieberman introduces DADT repeal, Servicemembers United calls on Obama/Levin to take action

From Servicemembers United:

While the new bill will still have to work its way through the normal legislative process, two supporting actions will be needed to ensure passage of the bill in 2010. First, President Obama can and should include explicit repeal language in one of the Defense Department’s legislative proposal packages that will be transmitted to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees over the next two months. This would be the single most critical action the President can still take to ensure repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law in 2010.

Second, Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, should ensure that full repeal language is included in the original draft of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that is crafted within his committee. These two actions together can ensure that the necessary support is in place to secure the needed votes for repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law in 2010.

Read More...

CNN.com wrongly suggests RAND DADT study concluded AGAINST gays - it didn't. In fact, it was so good, DOD buried it.

It might have been nice for CNN.com's Mike Mount to tell his readers that, contrary to what he implies in his story, the 1993 RAND study on gays in the military found that lifting the ban was quite do-able. In fact, the study was so good that it got buried by DOD when it came out. I know because I was there at the time, volunteering for Senator Kennedy, working on this issue. Read some of the 1993 RAND study findings here.

Here's what CNN said today about the RAND study:

Members also will work with the military-oriented think-tank Rand Corporation to update the 1993 National Defense Research Institute report on "Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment," according to the Gates letter. The original 1993 Rand study concluded that the majority of the population did not approve of homosexuality and that the public attitude about gays serving in the military was similar.

Well, yes, the RAND study did say that the public at the time didn't want gays serving in the military. Putting aside the fact that the public is now on our side, it's disturbing that CNN is spinning this as the "conclusion" of the RAND study. It's not. The study concluded that in spite of public attitudes, morale and cohesion would not likely be harmed significantly by repealing the ban.

Here's what the RAND study actually concluded:

Concern about the effect that an acknowledged homosexual would have on "combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" has dominated the debate. It also provides the basic rationale for the current policy that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (2) Most military leaders who have spoken publicly on the issue in recent months argue that introduction of a known homosexual into a unit, no matter how discreet his or her behavior might be, would seriously undermine the cohesiveness of that unit. Unfortunately, the subject has not been studied specifically, and no controlled experiments or other research bear directly on this issue.

There is a large body of potentially related empirical research in the fields of industrial organization, social psychology, sports psychology, and group behavior, a significant amount of which was sponsored by the military. Other potentially relevant material can be found in the ethnographic and biographical military literature. The principal conclusion from an extensive review of this literature is a commonsense observation: It is not necessary to like people in order to work with them, so long as members share a commitment to the group's objectives.

This is not a small point. Don't quote the RAND study as something negative when in fact it vindicated us. Read More...

Did you hear the one about the dead guy who signed the letter supporting DADT?

In an embarrassing development for John McCain, and all "Don't Ask Don't Tell" supporters, a supposed letter signed by 1,100 flag and general officers supporting retention of the DADT policy has become a bit of a fiasco for the good Senator.

The letter was prepared by a religious right activist, and John McCain famously, now infamously, used the letter during the recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on DADT as evidence for why the policy should not be repealed. Servicemembers United went through the list of signatories, just to check them out. Here's what they found.

A dead guy signed the letter, from the great beyond.

Then there's the signatory who says he doesn't agree with what the letter says (at least he's alive).

And the guy who says he never gave permission for them to sign his name to the letter at all.

And the guy involved with the youth sex scandal.

And the guy involved in Tailhook.

And the guy who said that minorities "don't swim as well" as white troops.

And that's only from a check of the first 200 names. Servicemembers United is now examining the other 900. Stay tuned. Read More...

Obama administration hasn't discussed timing or strategies for repeal of DADT with Lieberman either

To follow up on Joe's post earlier, Lieberman is the lead sponsor of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal in the Senate. The White House, which claims to have been working on repeal since day one, hasn't even discussed if we should pass the repeal this year, let alone how to pass the repeal this year, with the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate.

Yet HRC told us, repeatedly, including as recently as a few weeks ago, but as early as May of last year, that the White House has a plan to repeal DADT and they're executing it. So not only has the White House not shared their plan with SLDN and other groups (beyond HRC, apparently), but the White House also hasn't shared their plan with the lead sponsor in the Senate, or, as we learned two weeks ago, with Barney Frank or with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the committee in which the legislation is most likely to pass.

Just more evidence that there is no plan to pass DADT repeal this year. Then why does HRC keep saying there is? How is it part of HRC's strategy to not even let Barney Frank, Chairman Levin, and our lead sponsor in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, in on the "plan"? Part of the plan is not even telling Lieberman that the White House wants DADT repealed this year? It increasingly looks like HRC is simply lying, and that their refusal to call the administration out is harming our effort to repeal DADT this year. And if it doesn't happen this year, after the upcoming disastrous elections in November, it won't be happening for a long time coming.

More from Kerry Eleveld:

Although Lieberman said the administration “unequivocally” favors overturning the policy, he added that they have not explicitly discussed timing or specific strategies for repeal.

“I haven’t had the chance to talk to the White House about the idea of putting it into the Defense authorization bill,” he said.

Read More...

Marriage equality in DC: 'DO NOT underestimate the significance of this day'

It's a very exciting day in the District of Columbia. Marriage equality is the law of the land. There were so many hurdles, but the day has arrived.

My Washington Post (yes, I still have it delivered) has four major pieces on marriage today. The best article features a profile of a couple preparing for their wedding. It's titled, "For gay couples in D.C., political reality meets real life." And, that is true.

There's a great editorial:

DO NOT underestimate the significance of this day. The District of Columbia is now the sixth jurisdiction in the United States -- the first below the Mason-Dixon Line -- to legalize same-sex marriage. It is a day of celebration for the gays and lesbians who have pushed for recognition of their relationships. It is also a day to mark the progress society has made.

It is indeed.

The Catholic Archbishop tries to defend the inexcusable policy of cutting benefits for its employees in order to punish the gays (No one seems to get the logic of that one and it undermines the Church's commitment to fairness for workers.) The Catholic Church is becoming blinded by its homophobia, which is bizarre because a lot of priests are gay.

And, there's an article headlined "Roberts denies stay of District's same-sex marriage law: Chief justice's decision clears the way for D.C. to begin issuing licenses." That's just rich because there's no way Roberts is ever going to support marriage equality.

As far as I can tell, no heterosexual marriages have been destroyed in the past hour since D.C. has been issuing licenses. The sky has not fallen.

Also, I know there's a lot of coverage in the LGBT press this morning about marriage. But, I wanted to show how one of the city's main traditional media outlets is giving such prominent coverage to the new law. The same is true for local t.v. stations. This isn't just "gay" news, it's THE news. Read More...

Senate DADT bill: 'On the date of enactment, the discharges would have to stop'

At 11:45 a.m., Senator Lieberman is holding a press conference to announce the introduction of the Senate bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In advance of the bill's intro., Lieberman did an interview with Kerry Eleveld where he discussed both the process and the policy. First, the process, since that has become all-important in the dysfunctional Senate:

Lieberman, who has opposed the ’93 law since its inception, said ending the policy has significant support and that he would push for passing the bill this year, although he wasn’t sure he had the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

“I think a guess right now -- and this is really a guess -- if this bill came to a vote tomorrow, we’d have over 50 votes and that’s saying a lot,” he said. “Do we have 60? Not clear yet, but possible.”

But Lieberman also said he had spoken with Chairman Levin “preliminarily” about including the legislation in this year’s Defense authorization bill before it’s passed out of committee.

“That’s something that I’m happy to consider and, of course, it’s very important to have the Chairman’s support for that,” Lieberman said, noting that including a measure in committee would have “the procedural advantage” of forcing opponents to find the 60 votes needed to strip out the measure once it reached the floor. If the opposition failed to amass those votes, they would have to filibuster the entire Defense authorization bill, which would include many other provisions they might hesitate to obstruct, such as an increase in compensation for military personnel and funding for various defense systems.

Now, the policy, which calls for an end to discharges immediately, while giving the Pentagon time to complete its study and develop rules for implementing rules:

Under the Lieberman bill, discharges would become illegal and be halted on the date of enactment, or the moment the president signs the measure. However, the bill also allows the Pentagon approximately a year from February to perform its study, then another 60 days to issue new regulations and another 120 days for the individual service chiefs to issue their regulations.

“On the date of enactment, the discharges would have to stop,” said Lieberman. “Nonetheless, the bill does embrace the study that Secretary Gates has ordered within the Department.”

The White House, which has been talking with Lieberman since last fall about the bill, did not respond to a request for comment on its introduction.

As we've noted many, many times, the White House can demonstrate the President's commitment to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell by including the repeal provision in the policy recommendations for the Deparment of Defense that are sent Capitol Hill. Read More...

DADT: Just do it already

Andrew Sullivan quotes the Palm Center's Nathaniel Frank on why a "study" is a recipe for killing the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell:

While taking time to study the transition may seem reasonable at first blush, the reality is that the government, the military, and independent researchers have been studying this issue for decades. And all of their findings point to the same truth: Openly gay service does not impair military effectiveness. What's more, existing research already shows what steps should be taken to repeal DADT. It’s far from clear what good will come from another year of study--but it's easy to see obstructionists using the window to sow fear and doubt as a tactic to kill the plan for a repeal.

Indeed, the script emerging from this month’s opening salvo at the DADT hearings is eerily similar to the one that played out in 1993, when President Bill Clinton’s effort to lift the gay ban was derailed during a six-month study period. During that window, opponents of reform, led by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rallied to defend the status quo, forming a wall of military resistance that some said amounted to insubordination. They were joined by skeptical members of Congress. Ultimately, Clinton yielded to the pressure and backed away from his promise.

Read More...