As the Pentagon begins its year-long study of the impact of ending "don't ask, don't tell," the unaffordable talent loss among gay troops continues to pile up. An Infantry company commander and West Point graduate who deployed three times to Iraq and Afghanistan and received three bronze stars for his service is right now facing discharge for allegations that he is gay. The officer, who commanded two 170-soldier companies, was called by his superiors "an exemplary commander" whose "desire to lead Soldiers enthusiastically and with uncompromising standards is un-matched by his peers." (He has asked for anonymity since his case is not yet resolved.) Word is also breaking over at Bilerico that a ROTC cadet is facing discharge because she refused to recant a statement about her sexual orientation, and may face a back pay demand of $80,000 for the cost of her tuition.Read More...
Thursday, March 4, 2010
As the Pentagon studies, more gays fall
From Nathaniel Frank:
At the Oscars: February 22, 2009
I was sitting in the second balcony of the Kodak Theater last year as the Oscar for best actor was about to be announced. It was just three months after Prop 8. When Sean Penn’s name was called as the winner for his performance as Harvey Milk, something surprising happened that was not fully captured in the television coverage. The applause for Penn started out as one would expect -- it was enthusiastic, and clusters of people stood. But instead of dying down, the applause continued and grew far beyond what is usual for an acting award at the Oscars. As I stood clapping, I watched more and more people rise, until nearly everyone in the audience was standing. At that moment, it seemed to me that the ovation was no longer just for Sean Penn’s performance, but had transformed into a repudiation of Prop 8.
I had not expected this reaction at all. In fact, I was prepared for Mickey Rourke’s name to be called, not Sean Penn’s. Penn had already won best actor a few years earlier, and Rourke was a sentimental favorite. Despite the conventional wisdom that Hollywood is the champion of all things liberal, and is thus the champion of all things gay, it is not exactly welcoming toward gay-themed movies and shows ambivalence toward gay content. The trailer for “A Single Man,” for example, injects a straight romantic relationship into a movie that has none. (Colin Firth was outstanding, btw.)
Not only had Penn won, but there was also the emphatic, cathartic ovation. For me, the reaction marked a turning point, as if the Hollywood establishment was embarrassed by the passage of Prop 8 and, at least off-screen, was expressing a solidarity and resolve not to let that kind of anti-gay initiative happen again. Little did I know at the time that Rob and Michele Reiner had already met with political consultants Chad Griffin and Kristina Schake at the Beverly Hills Hotel to formulate a challenge to Prop 8. It was out of that meeting that Perry v. Schwarzenegger was born and Ted Olson and David Boies were recruited to work on the case. Whatever one might think of the wisdom of bringing the lawsuit, the effort behind it shows real engagement on the part of some Hollywood liberals, anyway, to get behind the LGBT cause.
One should be careful, of course, in extrapolating too much from a memorable event or two, and even when major shifts in the cultural or political landscape do occur, they can be difficult to recognize because they tend to happen in fits and starts. Nevertheless, I can’t help thinking that last year’s Oscar’s were one sign of a larger shift among straight liberals to greater solidarity with the LGBT cause. Compare what’s going on now with what happened just five years ago in 2004, when the Republicans used anti-marriage initiatives to try to drive their base to the polls in the presidential elections. Were there any national political figures who stood up in favor of marriage equality at that time, liberal or otherwise? Perhaps there were some, but I can't name any. To me, even liberals seemed eager to run from the fight, and there were precious few public figures of any kind who would speak out on our behalf. Now, by contrast, it has become politically expedient to support marriage equality in some circles, as Bill Clinton and Harold Ford’s recent (ahem) “changes of heart” demonstrate, and we have prominent, vocal straight supporters in the media like Jon Stewart and Keith Olberman.
Time will tell whether my intuition is correct and the political and cultural landscape has shifted permanently. Read More...
I had not expected this reaction at all. In fact, I was prepared for Mickey Rourke’s name to be called, not Sean Penn’s. Penn had already won best actor a few years earlier, and Rourke was a sentimental favorite. Despite the conventional wisdom that Hollywood is the champion of all things liberal, and is thus the champion of all things gay, it is not exactly welcoming toward gay-themed movies and shows ambivalence toward gay content. The trailer for “A Single Man,” for example, injects a straight romantic relationship into a movie that has none. (Colin Firth was outstanding, btw.)
Not only had Penn won, but there was also the emphatic, cathartic ovation. For me, the reaction marked a turning point, as if the Hollywood establishment was embarrassed by the passage of Prop 8 and, at least off-screen, was expressing a solidarity and resolve not to let that kind of anti-gay initiative happen again. Little did I know at the time that Rob and Michele Reiner had already met with political consultants Chad Griffin and Kristina Schake at the Beverly Hills Hotel to formulate a challenge to Prop 8. It was out of that meeting that Perry v. Schwarzenegger was born and Ted Olson and David Boies were recruited to work on the case. Whatever one might think of the wisdom of bringing the lawsuit, the effort behind it shows real engagement on the part of some Hollywood liberals, anyway, to get behind the LGBT cause.
One should be careful, of course, in extrapolating too much from a memorable event or two, and even when major shifts in the cultural or political landscape do occur, they can be difficult to recognize because they tend to happen in fits and starts. Nevertheless, I can’t help thinking that last year’s Oscar’s were one sign of a larger shift among straight liberals to greater solidarity with the LGBT cause. Compare what’s going on now with what happened just five years ago in 2004, when the Republicans used anti-marriage initiatives to try to drive their base to the polls in the presidential elections. Were there any national political figures who stood up in favor of marriage equality at that time, liberal or otherwise? Perhaps there were some, but I can't name any. To me, even liberals seemed eager to run from the fight, and there were precious few public figures of any kind who would speak out on our behalf. Now, by contrast, it has become politically expedient to support marriage equality in some circles, as Bill Clinton and Harold Ford’s recent (ahem) “changes of heart” demonstrate, and we have prominent, vocal straight supporters in the media like Jon Stewart and Keith Olberman.
Time will tell whether my intuition is correct and the political and cultural landscape has shifted permanently. Read More...
NYT: Levin again talks about not repealing DADT this year, but instead only passing moratorium
And if that happens, Don't Ask Don't Tell might not be repealed until 2024. That's what happened the last time the Democrats lost the Congress - which an increasing number of observers fear will happen this coming November - it took 14 years to get it back. And even then, we'd need a pro-gay President in office, so as not to veto whatever the Congress passes. (And even then, as we now know, it's possible that none of our top three priorities will go anywhere).
DADT repeal is in trouble. I worked on the Hill. I've worked in gay politics for 17 years, quite successfully. We've now heard Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committee through which DADT repeal will travel, repeatedly say that he thinks a moratorium is a better, and more viable, thing to do this year. Levin even went so far as to say this on the day we introduced the actual repeal in the Senate, thus undercutting the bill itself. (And remember, we want Levin to include DADT repeal in the Defense authorization bill from the start since it's much harder to remove a provision than to add one.)
Why is this happening? Because the White House has made clear that it doesn't want DADT repealed this year. But, you say, the President said he wanted DADT repealed in his State of the Union, and we had all those good hearings? Yes, that's true. But here's the thing. The President has a track record of promising things and then not following through to actually make them happen. Think: public option. And as proof, just two weeks ago, Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, twice, to simply say that the President would like to see DADT repealed this year. Twice, Gibbs refused to say it. Chairman Levin, just a few weeks ago, complained that the administration was not making clear to him whether and how he should proceed on the repeal. At the same time, Barney Frank said the White House's message on DADT was "muddled." Hill staffers in the House and Senate were complaining that the White House had dropped the ball and it was hurting the repeal effort.
Which brings us to HRC. Today and tomorrow, the Human Rights Campaign is holding its board meeting in Washington, DC. HRC has repeatedly said that the White House has a clear plan for passing DADT repeal, and that the plan is on track. If there's a plan, then why are Levin, Frank, and Hill staff saying the White House is basically MIA? Why did the White House spokesman refuse just two weeks ago to even say he wanted DADT repealed this year? Why do SLDN and the Palm Center both agree that there doesn't seem to be a plan? Why is Servicemembers United having to practically beg the President to include DADT repeal in the budget transmitals sent to Levin's committee - to no avail?
And why did Joe Lieberman, the lead sponsor of DADT repeal in the Senate, say only yesterday that the White House has not spoken with him about how to repeal DADT his year, nor have they even talked with him about "when" to repeal it? HRC's secret plan is so secret that they haven't even shared it with the chairman of the committee, or with our lead sponsor in the Senate. HRC's plan is so secret that the White House spokesman is refusing to even say that he would like to see DADT repealed this year. Or maybe there simply is no plan because the White House is missing in action, as usual, and HRC is afraid to defend its own community and call the President out for not following through on a clear promise he made in our exchange for our votes and our money.
DADT repeal is in trouble. And all the phone-banks to Congress won't amount to a hill of beans if the President isn't on board. And he isn't. And he is HRC's responsibility. And HRC is claiming that he's fine. So fine that the chairman of the committee is saying - yet again - that maybe we should do something short of a repeal this year on the very day the repeal legislation is being introduced.
I've lived in Washington for 25 years. I've worked in national politics for 20 years. This is not the kind of weak talk you want to see on the day you introduce legislation: the lead sponsor saying the White House hasn't told him boo about how, or even if, we should move ahead this year, and the Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction suggesting that maybe we should just cave this year.
HRC President Joe Solmonese promised our community this past weekend that DADT would be repealed this year. I have no idea why he said it, because at this point, it simply isn't happening. HRC knows that. And they know that President Obama is key to turning this around. Yet HRC issues another action alert today talking about the need to lobby Congress, and not a word about the President. (Their previous action alert was targeting John McCain - someone who no one thinks will ever support repeal - rather than targeting the key Democrats who have gone soft, and are holding up this entire effort.)
Please do call Congress. But know this. If the President isn't on board - and he isn't - Congress will not lift the ban. HRC knows this. You need to know it too. Someone on HRC's board needs to confront HRC with these facts, and get an answer. Because we're in serious trouble. Read More...
DADT repeal is in trouble. I worked on the Hill. I've worked in gay politics for 17 years, quite successfully. We've now heard Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committee through which DADT repeal will travel, repeatedly say that he thinks a moratorium is a better, and more viable, thing to do this year. Levin even went so far as to say this on the day we introduced the actual repeal in the Senate, thus undercutting the bill itself. (And remember, we want Levin to include DADT repeal in the Defense authorization bill from the start since it's much harder to remove a provision than to add one.)
Why is this happening? Because the White House has made clear that it doesn't want DADT repealed this year. But, you say, the President said he wanted DADT repealed in his State of the Union, and we had all those good hearings? Yes, that's true. But here's the thing. The President has a track record of promising things and then not following through to actually make them happen. Think: public option. And as proof, just two weeks ago, Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, twice, to simply say that the President would like to see DADT repealed this year. Twice, Gibbs refused to say it. Chairman Levin, just a few weeks ago, complained that the administration was not making clear to him whether and how he should proceed on the repeal. At the same time, Barney Frank said the White House's message on DADT was "muddled." Hill staffers in the House and Senate were complaining that the White House had dropped the ball and it was hurting the repeal effort.
Which brings us to HRC. Today and tomorrow, the Human Rights Campaign is holding its board meeting in Washington, DC. HRC has repeatedly said that the White House has a clear plan for passing DADT repeal, and that the plan is on track. If there's a plan, then why are Levin, Frank, and Hill staff saying the White House is basically MIA? Why did the White House spokesman refuse just two weeks ago to even say he wanted DADT repealed this year? Why do SLDN and the Palm Center both agree that there doesn't seem to be a plan? Why is Servicemembers United having to practically beg the President to include DADT repeal in the budget transmitals sent to Levin's committee - to no avail?
And why did Joe Lieberman, the lead sponsor of DADT repeal in the Senate, say only yesterday that the White House has not spoken with him about how to repeal DADT his year, nor have they even talked with him about "when" to repeal it? HRC's secret plan is so secret that they haven't even shared it with the chairman of the committee, or with our lead sponsor in the Senate. HRC's plan is so secret that the White House spokesman is refusing to even say that he would like to see DADT repealed this year. Or maybe there simply is no plan because the White House is missing in action, as usual, and HRC is afraid to defend its own community and call the President out for not following through on a clear promise he made in our exchange for our votes and our money.
DADT repeal is in trouble. And all the phone-banks to Congress won't amount to a hill of beans if the President isn't on board. And he isn't. And he is HRC's responsibility. And HRC is claiming that he's fine. So fine that the chairman of the committee is saying - yet again - that maybe we should do something short of a repeal this year on the very day the repeal legislation is being introduced.
I've lived in Washington for 25 years. I've worked in national politics for 20 years. This is not the kind of weak talk you want to see on the day you introduce legislation: the lead sponsor saying the White House hasn't told him boo about how, or even if, we should move ahead this year, and the Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction suggesting that maybe we should just cave this year.
HRC President Joe Solmonese promised our community this past weekend that DADT would be repealed this year. I have no idea why he said it, because at this point, it simply isn't happening. HRC knows that. And they know that President Obama is key to turning this around. Yet HRC issues another action alert today talking about the need to lobby Congress, and not a word about the President. (Their previous action alert was targeting John McCain - someone who no one thinks will ever support repeal - rather than targeting the key Democrats who have gone soft, and are holding up this entire effort.)
Please do call Congress. But know this. If the President isn't on board - and he isn't - Congress will not lift the ban. HRC knows this. You need to know it too. Someone on HRC's board needs to confront HRC with these facts, and get an answer. Because we're in serious trouble. Read More...
Pelosi on D.C.'s new marriage law: ' This is a joyous moment that history will forever remember as progress.'
This is a strong statement from a key ally:
Today marks a historic chapter in the advancement toward equality, fairness and the protections that marriage affords for all families. As we welcome marriage equality to our nation’s capital, I reiterate my longstanding commitment to home rule for the District of Columbia.It's also an important show of support from the Speaker. There could be an effort to use the Congressional appropriations process to thwart implementation of D.C.'s new marriage law. There's a history of Congress doing that to D.C. on issues like the city's domestic partners law and needle exchange. Having the Speaker on our side could help block that from happening in the House. Frankly, I'm not sure we could count on the White House for help if this becomes an issue. Read More...
Today, the District joins other states in leading the nation in ensuring fundamental civil rights. This is a joyous moment that history will forever remember as progress.
Anti-gay/Prop. 8 supporting legislator, father of four, arrested for DUI after leaving gay bar
These are things that no longer surprise us. It's always the ones who are so vehemently anti-gay. They're obsessed for a reason. From Joe.My.God:
Anti-gay GOP California state Sen. Roy Ashburn was arrested for DUI yesterday after leaving Faces, a popular Sacramento gay bar, with an unidentified male passenger. Ashburn has been a loud opponent of LGBT rights and has organized and hosted anti-gay marriage rallies for the Traditional Values Coalition. He also has a 100% rating from the anti-gay Capitol Resource Family Impact group for voting against every LGBT rights bill during his tenure.Yep. 100% rating. That should be a new code for closeted gays: "He's got a 100% rating from the anti-gays." Wink, wink. Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
