Children are victims of DADT as well

I'm a children's advocate. I can't stand to see a child suffer. From Bilerico:

[Author, Dana Rudolph's note: I first published this piece two years ago, when I had the honor of interviewing a lesbian-mom couple, one of whom is an active-duty military officer. Given the recent news about possible progress on a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it seemed timely to repost it, to remind us all of DADT's impact on the youngest members of our society. Names and identifying details have been changed to protect the family.]

Five-year-old William and three-year-old Ryan are the children of decorated U.S. Army officer Cheryl Parker. Like other children of service members, they have dealt with cross-country moves and months without their mother while she was deployed in Iraq. Unlike the others, however, they must forgo many benefits, conveniences and support services offered to military families, or risk revealing that they have another mother, Donna Lewis. This could lead to Parker's dismissal under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, even in LGBT-friendly Massachusetts.

In the close-knit community of an army base, there is a strong chance the young children will inadvertently out their mothers. "When I tried to put William in on-base daycare," explains Parker, "he would talk about having two moms. A lot of the daycare workers are spouses of military personnel. I don't need somebody's wife saying 'What's the deal with William Parker?'" The same applies to the other activities provided by the Army family centers, such as kiddie gym classes. "The questions start and then the lying begins, and it's just too complicated."

Read More...

To acknowledge the gay community's concerns, DNC gives self permission to send emails with hyperlinks

I am not kidding.

While the Snowmageddon was descending on Washington, DC, the DNC winter meeting held a vote meant to acknowledge the serious concerns the gay community and our allies have about the party's inaction, and sometimes backwards movement, on gay rights issues over the past year. So they passed a resolution meant to address the concerns, voiced here first, that the DNC's Organizing for America had asked Maine voters to help make phone calls for Jon Corzine in NJ, while not asking Mainers to do anything to help stop the now-successful marriage repeal effort in that state. A lot of us felt that it looked like the DNC was afraid of touching "the gay."

So they passed a resolution to rectify the matter. Let me quote you the salient part:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that OFA will continue to support the efforts of the Democratic Parties at the state and local level in communicating their positions on state issues by the most appropriate method, including sending individuals to state party websites whenever possible.

If you read it very closely, here is what it means:

OFA will continue to support state parties, and they'll use the "most appropriate method" to do so. Uh, okay. I would hope the DNC has always been using the most appropriate method to contact folks, but that's fine. The rest of the sentence says that those appropriate measure might include sending people the URL to their local state party web site, sometimes, but maybe not.

Why did we need a resolution to tell the DNC that they can email their members hyperlinks to state party sites? Was OFA not permitted to email hyperlinks to state party Web sites before? Not to mention, the resolution doesn't direct OFA to send those hyperlinks, it simply says they may, if they deem it appropriate.

So how does this have anything to do with our concern that the DNC refused to tell Maine voters to vote against the anti-gay ballot measure?

The full resolution is after the jump:

This resolution was considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on February 4, 2010, and the Committee moves its adoption by the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC adopted this resolution on February 6, 2010.

Submitted by: Jess Durfee, California

WHEREAS, in the 2009 election, OFA used its list to email supporters in several states; in two states -- New Jersey and Virginia -- supporters were asked to vote for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates; in select other states, emails were sent to supporters reminding them to "Vote on Tuesday;" and these emails did not include recommendations on key ballot measures on which the respective state parties had taken positions; and

WHEREAS, OFA has proven to be an incredible resource that has tapped into the vast pool of volunteers and activists that were inspired and mobilized by President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign; and

WHEREAS, since many state and local elections include voting on propositions and ballot measures, active support by OFA, where possible, will be a critical factor in securing election outcomes favored by Democrats and such OFA support on propositions, initiatives and ballot measures in 2010 and beyond will be critical to the future success of the Democratic Party in our states and territories;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that OFA will continue to support the efforts of the Democratic Parties at the state and local level in communicating their positions on state issues by the most appropriate method, including sending individuals to state party websites whenever possible.

Read More...

AFA joins FRC's call to 'jail the gays'

Yes, it's 2010 and we think we're making progress on LGBT equality. But, the haters still hate us. A lot.

USAToday's Religious columnist, Cathy Lynn Grossman, reports on right-wing theocrats from the Family Research Council (FRC) and American Family Association (AFA) who want to imprison gay Americans for being gay. For whatever reason, there has been an increased stream of this kind of extremist talk coming from groups that make up the base of the Republican Party:

Focus on the Family, sponsor of the Tim Tebow ad at the Super Bowl, isn't the only conservative evangelical group riling its critics right now.

Some folks are worried about President Obama munching toast at last week's National Prayer Breakfast with friends of Ugandan homophobe David Bahati. But while the prayer event held the headlines, leaders of the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, made news, too.

They wouldn't go as far as Uganda's kill-the-gays bill pushed by Bahati. They would just outlaw homosexuality, like shooting up illegal drugs, here in the USA, according to Tobin Grant's weekly roundup of the latest from Christian activist groups, for Christianity Today.

That these groups feel comfortable talking about jailing the gays at this point in times says a lot about the state of affairs in our nation.

Last week, John posted the video of Peter Spriggs from the Family Research Council calling for gay criminalization on MSNBC's Hardball.

The above-cited Tobin Grant includes this excerpt detailing AFA's warped thinking:

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association agreed with Sprigg. Citing policies and findings of the Federal Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, Fischer concluded that homosexual behavior should be criminalized because it "represents an enormous threat to public health."

"It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health. … Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct," said Fischer, AFA's director of issue analysis.

Fischer further justified his view by claiming that 1 Timothy 1:8-11 says "those 'who practice homosexuality' should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery."

Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association (AFA) are important players in Republican politics. So, we have to start asking Republicans if they agree with this proposal to jail the gays.

This could be part of some bizarre right-wing strategy to pull the debate away from progress on DADT. But, the scary thing is that they mean it. They don't want to kill us, just jail us.

This comes at a time when a leading Democratic consultant, Douglas Schoen, is actively promoting political homophobia. That's not helpful either. Read More...

Largest gay rights group in NJ to stop donating to political parties, asks members to do the same

This is a warning shot fired over the head of the Democratic party. It's also remarkably similar to our Don't Ask, Don't Give campaign we launched in November.

It's no longer just a few f'g r------ complaining about the party's inaction, and backwards movement, on various promises to the Democratic base. The Democrats are losing their base, and they're very much in danger of losing gay money and gay votes in November. Things will only get worse as other state-based gay groups make similar decisions to no longer give to either political party. And the situation won't be any better come October when DADT still isn't repealed after all the President's promises to do just that.

From Garden State Equality, via Andy Towle:

Sending a bold signal that no political party should take the support of the LGBT community and its allies for granted, Garden State Equality’s Board of Directors has unanimously approved a new provision for the organization’s bylaws that immediately precludes Garden State Equality from giving financial contributions to political parties and their affiliated committees. Under the new policy, Garden State Equality will make financial contributions only to individual candidates and to non-party organizations that further equality for the LGBT community.

The bylaws provision asks Garden State Equality members, who make their own decisions as to individual political contributions, to refrain from contributing to parties and their affiliated committees.

“No political party has a record good enough on LGBT civil rights that it can rightfully claim to be entitled to our money on a party-wide basis,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “No longer will we let any political party take our money and volunteers with one hand, and slap us in the face with the other when we seek full equality.”

"Our Board of Directors felt so strongly about adopting this new policy," Goldstein said, "that it unanimously decided to include it in the organization's bylaws."

Read More...

Philadalephia Inquirer: 'Now that the military's top brass has given its support,' End DADT

Here in D.C., people on Capitol Hill, at the White House and in key groups have parsed the statements of President Obama, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to find the wiggle room. But, in the real world, people have heard Obama, Gates and Mullen say it's time to end the discriminatory law. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer editorializes in support of ending the ban, based, in part, on the plain language of what Gates and Mullen said:

Now that the military's top brass has given its support to repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law, the ban against gays serving openly in the armed forces should be lifted as quickly as possible.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that repealing the ban was "the right thing to do."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the committee that it was no longer a matter of if the antigay policy should be repealed, but when.

The advocacy of the military leaders, although measured, is what has been missing from the debate and should carry weight to help settle the issue finally.

See, to most people, it's now official: Military leaders are on board. Obama keeps reiterating his commitment to end the ban, as he did this weekend at the DNC Meeting:

Everything should be in place. But, it's not. Given the perception of progress from the past few weeks, that doesn't make sense. Read More...

In Iowa today, GOP will push constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage

Because gay-bashing is central tenet of the GOP, Iowa legislators are trying to start the process to undo the state's marriage law:

Iowa House Republicans will attempt to bring about a vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the Iowa Independent reported.

The paper is reporting that gay rights group One Iowa believes Republicans will attempt to fish a bill that seeks to define marriage as a heterosexual union in the Iowa Constitution out of committee and put it up for a floor vote. Committee members have not acted on Democratic state Representative Michael Reasoner's proposed bill that aims to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court's April 3, 2009 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

“While legislative leadership has stood firm in support of equality, extremists are attempting to overthrow House rules and push an anti-marriage amendment to the floor!” One Iowa said in an email alert.

The procedural move to pull a bill out of committee requires a 51 vote majority. Seven Democrats would have to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans for the procedure to succeed. At least one Democrat, Reasoner, is expected to do that.

Republicans go to great lengths to burnish their anti-gay cred. Read More...