Kerry Eleveld explains how we got where we are on DADT repeal. Not pretty.

Excellent column from Kerry Eleveld tonight on the current DADT compromise situation. Kerry's analysis, as usual, is right on target. The White House has handled this issue horribly. They ignored the issue for months, even working against us at times. But, they injected themselves into the end of the process and came up with this convoluted compromise language that can't answer a simple question: When do the discharges end?

And, I thought the whole point of offering a compromise was to pick up additional votes. That hasn't happened. In fact, the recent language from the White House and Pentagon helped us lose a vote today: Senator Jim Webb.

The combination of efforts from our key allies on the Hill and the activists (including many of you) forced the White House to follow through on the President's commitment. But, Team Obama, led by Jim Messina, did it in their usual, clumsy half-assed fashion. This is a controversial political issue from an annoying constituency for the White House. But, the implications are huge for gay and lesbian servicemembers -- and the rest of the LGBT community:

So how did we get where we are? The White House and Gates seemingly didn’t want a vote this year. Activists wouldn’t let up. Murphy, Levin, and Lieberman put in a heroic effort to salvage repeal. And in my estimation, when Levin was one vote away in the Senate committee, White House officials realized the repeal train was leaving without them and not hopping aboard was a no-win situation. If it passed, they would get no credit; if it failed by one vote, activists would castigate them for withholding support.

This compromise could still fail, and make no mistake, the deal was brokered by the White House, which then treated it as the redheaded stepchild it never wanted in the first place. But the outcome — win or lose — now has the administration's fingerprints on it, even though its refrain since Monday morning has been that Congress was forcing its hand.

Sadly, the best-case scenario — passage — will do nothing to stop the discharges in the near term. It is a critical step that removes the first roadblock to changing the policy at some indefinite point in the future. Passing the measure would not immediately repeal the law — instead the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will continue until the DOD study is completed and Gates, Mullen, and Obama certify that repeal can proceed.

No matter what happens during the votes Thursday and Friday, the White House will deserve credit only after the law is repealed and replaced with a nondiscrimination policy. And if Congress votes to cede authority over the policy to the administration, President Obama will be uniquely empowered to issue an executive order that guarantees all Americans the opportunity to serve their country with integrity and honor.

President Obama will get credit for repealing DADT when the discharges end. And, he's still got a long way to go to fulfill those promises on ENDA and DOMA. We haven't forgotten about them. Read More...

Active-Duty Soldier with two tours in Iraq, Anthony Bustos, came out on ABC News tonight

Got the tip from SLDN that one of its clients, Anthony Bustos, was going to come out tonight on ABC News. Indeed, he did.

ABC's Bob Woodruff did a piece on photographer Jeff Sheng's portrait series on gay and lesbian servicemembers. One of his subjects was Mustos. And, tonight, he told the world that he is gay:

Anthony is a native Texan. Anthony is 24. Anthony is an eight year service member. Anthony has done two tours in Iraq.

Anthony watched his two best friends in the army die when an IED hit their Humvee in 2005.

Anthony is gay.

"I think about them very day," Bustos said, remembering his friends who did not come home. "I feel like I might have cheated them of knowing the real me because I was afraid to come out to them and they died not knowing the real me, who I was completely. And I feel every day that I should have told them. I know they know now. I still talk to them and I still pray for them and everything, I just feel like we didn't get to talk about a part of me that was an essential part."

Bustos, like all the service members Sheng has photographed, says he loves the military. He is leaving because of "don't ask, don't tell."

"If the policy was changed, I would like to re-enlist into the military," he said. "I like the core structure of it. I like the core values. I think they are great values. I love the structure of everything, how everything has a set time, the uniformity of everything. I am very much a military brat and I thrive under stress and under pressure and all that and I love it. I love the physical aspect, the mental aspect, everything. But right now, as far as my conscience goes I cannot continue to serve under this policy."

This is another real person affected by the discriminatory law. DADT is just another political issue for Jim Messina and his crew at the White House.

For Anthony Mustos, DADT is ruining his life. This is absurd.

We still don't know if the compromise will pass and, even if it passes, we don't know when the discharges will actually end. Read More...

Webb to vote no on DADT compromise, blames WH and Gates statements that, he says, told him to vote no

This statement from Democratic Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is FUBAR beyond all belief. Webb has interpreted the White House and Pentagon statements in support of the DADT compromise as actually being statements OPPOSED to the compromise. Of course, one can't totally blame Webb, as the statements from both the White House and the Pentagon both sure sound like they want members of Congress to vote NO.

Here is Webb's statement:

"Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen have laid out a specific and responsible plan to examine the current 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in a manner that includes a comprehensive survey of those wearing the uniform. The White House and Secretary Gates both said today that, ideally, the Defense Department should complete this review before legislative action is taken. There is no question that a review of the policy is necessary and important. I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it."

So has the President called Webb to let him know that isn't what the White House meant? Has the Secretary of Defense called Webb to explain? What was the White House thinking when they issued a statement of support for the legislation that started by expressing the wish that nothing be voted on this year? Did they really think no members of Congress would get the hint?

The White House permitted Gates to, yet again, roll the President of the United States of America, while the President tried, yet again, to stake out a position, but then not really own, defend, or promote the position. And, as always the result is one big disaster.

Not a terribly inspiring message for gay and lesbian voters as we roll into November. Read More...

DOD's negative statements hurting DADT repeal effort; White House insufficiently whipping votes

Joe and I have had reports that the Pentagon's less than enthusiastic support for the President's DADT proposal may now be harming the proposal's chance of passage.

The White House and Secretary Gates have both been putting out statements of "support" for the compromise that start with a key phrase suggesting they'd rather members vote NO. Here's the White House's version:

"While ideally the Department of Defense Comprehensive Review of the Implementation of Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 would be completed before the Congress takes any legislative action..."

And here is Gates, via Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell:

“Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law.

What the White House doesn't seem to realize, but the Pentagon most surely does, is that this isn't a message of support. It's a message that tells members of Congress that you'd rather they vote NO. And we hear that some members have gotten the message.

This is the President's compromise. If it passes, he'll get credit. If it doesn't, he'll get the blame. Along those lines, it's important to note another thing Joe and I have heard. Apparently the White House isn't actively engaged in getting us the votes we need to pass the Senate. This is the President's compromise. It's his campaign promise. It's what he told us he was going to do in the State of the Union. So let's see some follow through from the President. Statements are not enough. This isn't the campaign. You're the President of the United States. Put some muscle into it, and get the damn thing passed. Read More...

Scott Brown (R-Teabagger)

Newly-minted GOP Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown has just announced that he's voting against the DADT compromise that's been endorsed by the Pentagon and the White House. Here's why:

"I am keeping an open mind, but I do not support moving ahead until I am able to finish my review, the Pentagon completes its study, and we can be assured that a new policy can be implemented without jeopardizing the mission of our military," Brown said in a statement provided to the Globe.

Uh, yeah. Except of course the legislation already addresses those concerns. The repeal won't go into effect unless and until the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the President all certify that the new policy won't jeopardize the military's mission. Specifically, the legislation says the repeal won't go into effect until the three gentleman certify that the repeal "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces." So what exactly is Scott Brown's point? It doesn't make sense.

Perhaps, and this is the more likely explanation, Scott Brown is afraid of ticking off the far-right Teabaggers from Alabama who put him into office in the first place. (Of course, even that doesn't make sense, as the Teabaggers, in a recent poll, support DADT repeal to the tune of nearly 70%.)

Funny, I thought Brown wanted to represent Massachusetts. Read More...

CNN poll: '78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military'

78 percent. That's amazingly strong support. But, here in DC, repealing DADT is a considered a controversial issue. And, the White House couldn't just push for the often promised repeal. Nope. The White House had to concoct a complicated compromise that, according to Richard Socarides offers a "conditional future repeal." That's what we get from our "fierce advocate."

78 percent:

Most Americans say people who are openly gay should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday indicates that 78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed.

"Support is widespread, even among Republicans. Nearly six in ten Republicans favor allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "There is a gender gap, with 85 percent of women and 71 percent of men favoring the change, but support remains high among both groups."

So, why all the angst at the White House and on Capitol Hill? I just don't get it.

Repealing DADT is a winning political issue. It should be anyway.

We still have no idea when the discharges will stop. (No one can actually answer that question.) So, we'll be probably be fighting to make that happen for a long time. But, we have a wide majority of the public on our side. Read More...

A letter about DADT to Obama from Former Capt. Beth Schissel

At the very core of the debate over DADT repeal are the men and women whose lives have been impacted by the discriminatory law. This isn't just a political issue for them. It's about their lives. SLND's series, “Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama” has put a spotlight on some of these heroes.

We should have been sending copies of the letters to Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina. He's the White House staffer who made the legislative compromise on behalf of his boss. And, Messina is all about politics. If DADT isn't actually repealed under this complicated legislative scheme concocted, then it's going to be a big political problem for the President. One key section in the compromise legislation is titled, "No Immediate Effect on Current Policy." There better be an effect on current policy.

Here's the latest letter:

May 25, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

On the morning of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, I was monitoring the events unfolding in New York City while tending to patients in the Emergency Department at Duke University Medical Center. The leadership of the department was activating our disaster plan to accept as many patients as possible from the New York area. All too quickly, it became evident that there would be no need for our hospital to activate.

I knew that brutal attack would not go unanswered. I knew my leadership and medical skills soon would be needed to care for those who would be sent into harm’s way. Naively, I thought that mission needs would trump my being a lesbian, but a few weeks later, I received a notice in the mail. It was signed on September 10th, 2001 by the Secretary of the Air Force. I was discharged.

My military career was over.

I was a proud member of the tenth class of women to graduate from the United States Air Force Academy. I graduated in the top 15 percent of my class and was named Academic All-American/All-American in women’s golf. I entered active duty service as an acquisition officer and just three years later, was selected to the commanding general’s staff while only a first lieutenant.

With the encouragement of my mentor, the future Air Force Surgeon General, I applied and was accepted to medical school on a military scholarship. Before I left for medical school, I was honored by two retired women general officers – each gave me one of their stars and told me they planned to be there to provide the match to the pair.

While in medical school, I fell in love with my best friend. While most people are thrilled to have found their true love, their soul mate, I agonized over it. That’s because my friend, my love, and my soul mate was a woman.

It was the fall semester of my final year of medical school. I was forced to make a life-altering decision. For nearly two years, I had been stalked. My home had been broken into and I had received credible threats to be outed by a civilian with no attachment to the military. I had to take control of the situation for my safety, for my sanity, and to protect my honorable service record.

The hardest call I ever had to make was to my mentor. I was ashamed to have let him down and to have wasted his efforts in molding my career. I felt like I had to apologize for breathing the same air as the rest of the world. I was devastated that I couldn’t continue to be part of the air force family who’d raised me and counted on me.

My mentor was gracious and kind. He didn’t care that I was a lesbian and considered it a mistake to let me go. He assured me that I would only disappoint him if I didn’t use all I’d been given to make a difference in this world.

I have done my best. I have supported two of my step children as they made their way from West Point to Iraq. I have cared for the sick and injured children of my community as they arrive in the emergency department.

But it will never be the same as the best I could have given in uniform. Every day my country is at war, I think about my military family; I am not there for them. Every day, I am reminded that, simply because of who I love, my country has said I’m not good enough to help save the lives of our women and men in uniform.

Mr. President, thank you for helping us end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.

Respectfully,

Former Capt. Beth Schissel
United States Air Force

Read More...

Gallup: Majority of Americans now accept gay relationships

A quick break from DADT-related news.

Gallup has released its annual "Values and Beliefs" polling, which shows support for gay relationships has reached a majority in the United States. Finally.

Interesting that the change has occurred mostly among men -- and Catholics showed a big jump, too:

Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend.

Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, documents a gradual increase in public acceptance of gay relations since about 2006. However, the change is seen almost exclusively among men, and particularly men younger than 50.

Additionally, Gallup finds greater movement toward acceptance among independents and Democrats than among Republicans, and a big jump in acceptance among moderates. Liberals were already widely accepting of gay relations in 2006, and have remained that way, while conservatives' acceptance continues to run low.

Notably, there has been a 16-point jump in acceptance among Catholics, nearly three times the increase seen among Protestants. Acceptance among Americans with no religious identity has expanded as well.

Gallup also found a majority opposes same-sex marriage: 53% - 44%. Read More...