HRC: President isn't showing leadership on DADT

I know a lot of people don't like the Human Rights Campaign (America's biggest gay rights advocacy group at the national level) and therefore won't trust any statement they put out. And fair enough - though I've been a rather vocal supporter of HRC in the past, I've also become a rather loud critic over the past six months. Having said that, what fascinating about this statement by HRC is what it shows.

I would suspect that HRC gave the White House a heads up that this statement was going out, and it's even quite possible that they told the White House "we don't really mean it, it just provides us cover with the angry Netroots." But there's the thing. HRC just came out and accused the President, publicly, of not providing leadership on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." For a lot of people, the fact that HRC, a long-time defender of the President on gay issues, is now criticizing that same President, means that Obama must REALLY be bad for HRC to say something negative.

And on the heels of Congressman Barney Frank's admission last week that the White House is "ducking" the repeal of DADT, and "not being supportive," this statement by HRC becomes only that much more serious for the White House.

Second point. If Obama were actually showing leadership on DADT, HRC wouldn't put out a statement saying he wasn't. They'd simply explain the ways in which the President was working towards repeal this year. But he's not. And HRC had no choice but to tell the truth. That means things really are bad with the White House on DADT, just as we've been saying for almost a year now.

Does this get HRC off the hook for covering the President for the past year that he's been backtracking on our issues, for saying that the President had a plan, and all was going well? No. But it is an important first step, and I'll give HRC credit for it, regardless of their motivation, and regardless of what they did or didn't signal privately to the White House.

Here's the problem for the White House and for Democrats overall. A lot of gay people will take HRC at its word, that the President is NOT showing leadership on DADT, and that such leadership must be shown if we are to get repeal this year before the elections. If DADT isn't repealed this year, the President will share a large part of the blame, per HRC's own admission today. Joe and I have been saying for a while now that the Democrats are walking on very thin ice with regards to the party's relationship with the gay community and our allies. I think, with this statement from HRC today, you're starting to see that ice begin to crack.

It's no longer the Netroots saying that President Obama isn't showing leadership on his promises. It's now the largest gay rights group in America. Democrats, eight months before a crucial congressional election, you have a problem.

Here is HRC's full statement:

Human Rights Campaign Statement on DOJ Brief in Support of Discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, released the following statement today regarding the United States Department of Justice's filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, a constitutional challenge to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

The Log Cabin Republicans challenged the 1993 law in federal court in 2004. On Monday, March 29, the Department of Justice filed a brief defending the law, stating among other things that Congress could have rationally concluded that DADT was necessary to ensure privacy, reduce sexual tension, and maintain unit cohesion and military preparedness.

Statement by Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese:

"We were proud when the President stood before the American people and declared in his State of the Union that it is time to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' If he's going to uphold that commitment, however, he must ensure that his Administration doesn't work against it. The time for repeal is this year, and the time for his leadership is now.

"Over the last several years, I have met countless veterans who have sacrificed in the name of freedom, but in doing so were unfairly forced to sacrifice their integrity by hiding who they are. They love this country, have put their lives on the line to defend it, and serve just as courageously as all our men and women in uniform. Yet, they are forced to serve under the discriminatory DADT law, or to not serve at all.

"While these veterans - and so many Americans in support of them - are fighting along side our President and many Congressional leaders to achieve repeal, today we took a step backward when the Department of Justice filed a brief in defense of the law. The brief relies on arguments that were debunked and discredited in 1993, and even more so now. When military leaders - including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, General Collin Powell and Vice President Cheney - have the courage to stand up and say it is time to throw out the discriminatory policies of the past, it is also time for this Administration to show leadership, move the debate forward, and work with Congress to get repeal done.

"This year presents an unprecedented opportunity to repeal the law, and to finally recognize that all brave men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line for this country deserve to serve openly. While the Pentagon undertakes its review of how to implement repeal, Congress can and must move forward in repealing DADT in the same bill that put it into law more than 17 years ago - the defense authorization act. And the President can and must provide the leadership necessary to get the law passed this year."

Read More...

Obama Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler today lied to gay community about DADT

Today the Obama administration defended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in court. They went so far as to argue that it's constitutional, and then they quoted Colin Powell, from 17 years ago, saying all sorts of hideous things about gays serving in the military, which was bad enough - even worse, they didn't bother mentioning that Powell has now pretty much recanted all of that.

Anyway, here's the lie from DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, then I'll give you lots of proof to show that she just lied to every single one of you:

Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesman, reiterated the administration’s opposition to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, and its goal of repealing “this discriminatory law.”

“In this case the Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged,” she said. “The Department does not pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one Administration’s policy preferences.”

Several problems here.

1) We are told that "traditionally" the department defends statutes, regardless of how vehemently the administration disagrees with the law. That is a lie, and it's one that Joe and I have been fighting back against for 8 months now. The first time DOJ, and the Obama administration generally, trotted out this lie was during the DOMA brief fiasco last June (this was the brief defending the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act by invoking incest and pedophilia, among other things). At the time, the administration said they had no choice but to defend the bigoted law in court. That was untrue. To prove it, we did two things.

A) We pointed to four different court cases in which the Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, and W Bush administrations went to court and refused to defend a law that they believed unconstitutional (thanks to activist Paul Sousa for finding the cases). And I quote our post from last June:

In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

So traditionally the President only defends heinous cases when he wants to.

B) We asked Richard Socarides, a lawyer who served as a top adviser to President Clinton in the White House, to write us a piece explaining just what options the President has when his Justice Dept has to go to court to defend a law he claims not to like. Here is what Richard wrote at the time - this is important:

I was equally troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

No matter what the president’s personal opinion, administration officials now tell us that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must defend the laws on the books, and must advance all plausible arguments in doing so. Thus, the theory goes, the DOJ was just following the normal rules in vigorously defending the anti-gay law.

I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.

From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.

Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington.

They had a choice, and in fact, they did not follow "tradition." As Richard just explained, the tradition is to keep the Justice Department's action in line with the President's policies. Period. That's the way it works.

2. Perhaps the biggest lie from Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler is the following:

“The Department does not pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one Administration’s policy preferences.”

Policy preferences? Is that what our civil rights, and clear promises from the President during the campaign, have now transformed into - simple "policy preferences"?

But back to the substance, what Tracy Schmaler just told you is a flat out lie.

As we have shown, over and over again, the Obama administration is more than happy to look the other way on laws that don't agree with their "policy preferences." I'm not saying that they go to court and argue against the laws, I'm saying that they simply ignore them. The gay community and our allies are simply asking the Obama administration to help us strike down DOMA and DADT in court - we've never asked them to simply ignore the law. But that is exactly what they do when other communities, other administration policy preferences, are in play.

A) Last October the Obama administration outright ignored federal law regarding marijuana because it was at odd's with the administration's policy preferences with regards to medical marijuana.

B) Then there is President Obama's use of signing statements to simply ignore laws passed by Congress.

C) Then there's this from the NYT just two months ago:

T]he approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard....

[T]he administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional....

Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress....

Last year the Obama administration disregarded a statute that forbid State Department officials to attend United Nations meetings led by nations deemed state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has included that restriction in several recent bills.

D) Then there was the time that the Obama administration refused to enforce immigration laws because they didn't comport with the administration's policy preferences.

Need I go on?

Tracy Schmaler at the Department of Justice is either a liar, or grossly misinformed. Either way, what she told Josh Gerstein of Politico today was absolutely false, and she has no business speaking to the media, or to our community.

For some reason, and it's clearly not a legal one, the Obama administration does not want to defend our civil rights in court (or much anywhere). They ought to just admit it outright, rather than lying to us about why it is they keep siding with the very same bigots who not long ago would have had a problem with a black President. Read More...

Father of Marine killed in Iraq must pay court costs of Phelps clan

Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder died serving his country in Iraq. At his funeral, the Phelps family showed up to protest. Snyder's family sued them.

This is latest disturbing chapter in this story:

In a decision likely to strike many observers as cruel, a federal appeals court ordered the father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral drew protesters from a church notorious for such demonstrations to pay the church leader's $16,510 in legal fees.

It strikes me as cruel. Here's a link to the initial AP article, which included this line:

The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.

So, the Phelps "won" because they're protected by the U.S. constitution. And, they spend their days trying to deny legal protections to others. Oh, the irony.

The Snyder family has a website:

The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, US Marine Corps, has begun this civil lawsuit* against Mr. Phelps and certain members of the so-called Westboro Baptist Church to bring an end to the reign of terror and abuse that they inflicted upon the grieving families of US service members killed in defense of our nation. Using innocent children to deliver their twisted message of hatred and fear, the defendants in this suit have sought to attack the memory of our departed heroes, to strip their loved ones of their dignity, and to use abuse and intimidation as a tool for preventing surviving family members from reaching closure over their loss.

It is the sincere hope of Mr. Al Snyder, Matthew’s father, that this suit will spark similar legal actions against Mr. Phelps wherever he seeks to inflict harm upon the memory of our heroes and their families. If you feel strongly that such actions should be stopped, please consider a donation to help offset the legal expenses of bringing this suit.

Read More...

Rep. Jared Polis: ENDA will pass the House this spring, 'It’s just a scheduling matter'

Karen Ocamb caught up with Rep. Jared Polis at a Stonewall Democrats event in Los Angeles. And, she got some good info.:

KO: Where are we on ENDA?

JP: We have the votes to pass ENDA in the House and we hope to bring it before the committee I serve on – the Education Labor Committee – within the month – by the end of April. And then, once it passes the committee, it shouldn’t take more than a couple of weeks – a week or two – to schedule it for the floor. It’s just a scheduling matter.

We think we would have passed it by now if it wasn’t for healthcare taking up much of the workload of our committee.

I don’t know about the Senate – but in the House, we expect to pass out substantially. It has substantial support. The Senate requires 60 votes so it’s a matter of getting some Republican moderates to support it.

KO: Will Obama use bully pulpit and will you nudge him along on ENDA?

JP: I think President Obama played a constructive role in helping bring hate crimes to his desk and I think he’ll play a similar role in helping to get ENDA to his desk.

I think we'll all be more than pleasantly surprised if Obama plays a constructive role to get ENDA onto his desk. I'm not counting on it.

Meanwhile, on the issue that Obama did push in his State of the Union address, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year, Polis wasn't as optimistic about getting a vote:

KO: What About Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

JP: I certainly advocate repealing it as soon as possible. There’s many other people in the House who feel that way. We’re up to close to 190 co-sponsors of Patrick Murphy’s bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I think the sooner we repeal it the better. It’s the military’s position that they want to complete the study first.

Actually, it was Defense Secretary Gates who said he doesn't want legislation until the study is completed. He works for Barack Obama. Actually, the entire military is under the command of Barack Obama. In the United States, we're supposed to have civilian control. Read More...

Chaz Bono asks judge for gender and name change

Although, he is already a man, Chaz Bono is asking a judge to make it legal:

Chaz Bono is asking a judge to formally change his name and gender.
The 41-year-old writer, activist and reality-TV star, was born a girl to Sonny Bono and Cher. He filed a petition to change his name and gender last week.

Bono's doctor filed a declaration with the court indicating he performed a gender-change operation last year.

I'm sure there is no such thing as privacy when you are the child of major celebrities, like Sonny and Cher, and so I hope Chaz realizes the LGBT community is behind him all the way. Read More...

DOJ offers full-throated defense of DADT in court

There's no indication that the Obama administration is moving forward on the President's promise to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. In fact, all of the evidence is to the contrary - Barney Frank recently said about the White House's approach to repealing DADT: ''They're ducking. Basically, yeah, they're not being supportive." But, the Department of Justice is aggressively defending the constitutionality of the law, even though they don't have to. The latest example is a case brought by Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) back in 2004.

DOJ asked for summary judgment, in order to throw the case out. It's strongest argument is a challenge to the standing of LCR. But, as in the DOMA brief (that invoked incest and pedophilia as a reason the court shouldn't overturn DOMA), DOJ had to go the extra mile to show just how valid the DADT law is. It's hard to miss the section titled:

Because Congress Could Rationally Have Concluded That The DADT Policy Is Necessary To Maintain Unit Cohesion, Accommodate Personal Privacy, and Reduce Sexual Tension For Military Effectiveness, LCR’s Facial Due Process Challenge Fails

They only right-wing talking point they left out is the "we're in two wars" argument.

You'd think by now the Obama administration would have figured out a way to finesse its legal arguments on issues like this this. In fact, you'd think the President would be using his Dept of Justice to fight the constitutionality of DOMA and other legislation that impinged on the civil rights of our citizens. Remember what we learned during the DOMA brief debacle -- the administration can oppose laws that it finds unconstitutional. But when it comes to gays and lesbians, the administration chooses not.

John and I are going through the brief right now, but on particularly egregious portion cites the 1993 testimony of Colin Powell:

General Powell testified that homosexual conduct in units “involves matters of privacy and human sexuality that, . . . if allowed to exist openly in the military, would affect the cohesion and well-being of the force.” 1993 WL 2866446 at 281. He further testified that “it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline” if the military required heterosexuals and persons who demonstrate that they do or are likely to engage in homosexual acts “to share the most private facilities together,” id. at 283, and that “[c]ohesion is strengthened or weakened in the intimate living arrangements we force upon our people. . . . In our society gender differences are not considered conducive to bonding and cohesion within barracks living spaces.” Id. at 278.

That was 1993. Now, the Obama administration's Dept. of Justice may be stuck in 1993, but in 2010, General Powell thinks the law should be repealed:

“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”

"Attitudes and circumstances have changed." But, the President Obama's DOJ is still vigorously defending the underlying policies from 1993 to make its legal case -- they're still arguing that gay service members hurt unit cohesion at the same time they claim they want to lift the ban. And they're using people who have already recanted on their previous bigotry.

Here's another example where the administration is happy to parrot the bigoted arguments used to pass DADT in the first place:

The Ninth Circuit in Philips continued by acknowledging that “we cannot say that the Navy’s concerns are based on ‘mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable’ by the military. Nor can
we say that avoiding sexual tensions lacks any ‘footing in the realities’ of the Naval environment in which Philips served.”

Ah, so anti-gay prejudice isn't just based on fear or negative attitudes. That's helpful.

Then there's the "barracks and showers" argument, aka "forced intimacy. The Obama administration had a field day with that one.

These rules are necessitated by, among other things, “[t]he worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely [which] make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” Id. § 654(a)(12). Congress’s policy judgment culminated, as noted, in its finding that “[t]he presence in the armed forces of
persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

It goes on, a lot. Like the pages where the Obama administration tries to minimize the impact of the historic Lawrence v. Texas case. It's probably our most significantly legal victory in decades, if not ever. Just as in the DOMA brief, the administration is attempting to limit our ability to use other legal victories to expand our civil rights. That is simply unacceptable. They should be on our side, not fighting to thwart our civil rights challeneges.

If only the people charged with ending DADT, starting with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, were as assertive and aggressive as the lawyers at DOJ who defend the law. As Richard Socarides, a former senior advisers to President Clinton put it:

They seem to have a pretty strong plan to defend the law, and no plan whatsoever to repeal it.

The DOJ brief is below. I'm sure the usual apologists will jump to the defense of the Obama administration, even as it becomes more and more clear that the Obama administration has no intention of working to repeal DADT, or enacting ENDA, or repealing DOMA. This also begs the question of what the DOJ's LGBT liaison, Matt Nosanchuk, does all day. Didn't this set off some warning bells? Perhaps he has as much sway as the LGBT liaison at the White House, Brian Bond -- which isn't much.

We did not elect a Democratic president so that he could go to court and undercut our most important civil rights cases.

Dept. of Justice Defends Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy

Don't Ask, Don't Give. Read More...

Voyeur

Here is a Yelp! review of Voyeur, the now infamous strip club where those RNC donations were spent, and which happens to be located in my fair city:

The girl at the door sent us in right away and told us to go to a table by the bar and get some free Champagne. Seriously. This club is amazing. There are topless "dancers" acting out S&M; scenes throughout the night on one of the side stages, there's a half-naked girl hanging from a net across the ceiling and at one point I walked to the bathroom and pretty much just stopped dead in my tracks to watch two girls simulating oral sex in a glass case.

Really understated elegance here.

Also, Lindsay Lohan was at our table at one point.

Here's another:

Apparently this is the hottest club in Hollywood right now where all the celebrities like to hang out. I personally found this place kinda shady! And I'm not talking about the dark lighting or the topless dancers dangling from the ceiling. If you do table service, forget about any sort of VIP treatment. You still have to wait awhile in line and they seem to expect you to order one bottle for every 2 people. WTF? How are 2 people supposed to finish a bottle of vodka? And in less than 3 hours considering the club's closing time at 2am?!

And no, I didn't see any celebrities or paparazzi. Probably because I was too drunk (yes, we finished our bottles! Can't let good alcohol go to waste!) and don't even remember leaving the place....

No, I have never been. Don't intend to, either. I'm a married woman. Read More...