Poll: More than 70% of Iraq and Afghanistan vets comfortable serving alongside gay troops

Via ThinkProgress:

As the Pentagon prepares to survey soldiers about President Obama’s decision to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a new poll of military personnel who served in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars has finds that sexual orientation is “not a burning issue that overwhelms veterans’ lives.”

The new poll, commissioned by The Vet Voice Foundation and conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic pollsters, finds that most veterans are “comfortable around gay and lesbian people, believe that being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties, and would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Fifty-eight percent of veterans said they served alongside gays or lesbians, and only 22 percent thought they had not:

– 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” Only 29% disagree.

– 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Only a quarter (25%) would find it unacceptable.

– 73% Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say “they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.” Only a quarter (23%) is uncomfortable, and hardly anyone is very uncomfortable (only 7%).

Read More...

Some rare eye candy on Ablog Gay

(H/t Andy Towle) Read More...

Karl Rove made his father's sexual orientation a relevant issue

Karl Rove is upset that the sexual orientation of his father became a public issue. But, James Moore, the author of the book that disclosed that information, explains how Rove made it relevant:

Louis Rove's personal life was nobody's business until his adopted son decided to make gay rights a wedge issue in the campaigns of George W. Bush. Rove, who recently pleaded for privacy during divorce from his wife Darby, pushed policies in campaigns that were designed to interfere in the private lives of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Rove has no right to demand privacy when he refuses to respect it in the lives of other individuals and families. His relationship with his father is context for his politics and interest in his father is a consequence of those politics.

When he was interviewed by Matt Lauer on The Today Show, Rove said he had no idea if his father was gay. If this is the case, Karl was one of the few people who knew Louis Rove that was not aware of his sexual orientation. In our book, The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power, (I disagreed with the publisher's hyperbolic subtitle), I interviewed several people in Palm Springs, California about Louis Rove and his politically ambitious son. Joseph Koons, who was Louis Rove's best friend for 13 years, told me, "Louie didn't hide the fact that he was gay. But he didn't play it up either. We had lots of gay and straight friends. I was never the effeminate type and neither was Louie. We didn't play it up that way, either. But he was gay. And so am I."

Read More...

PA: Senate votes down marriage amendment bill

ACLU of PA via Pam:

The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee today voted against legislation to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania hailed the vote as a victory for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in the commonwealth.

"The efforts to embed discrimination against LGBT people into our constitution have failed for a third time," said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, citing failed attempts to pass similar legislation in 2006 and 2008. "This committee today recognized that LGBT people are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends, and our family members and that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

Senate Bill 707, introduced by Senator John Eichelberger of Blair County, was tabled by an 8-6, bipartisan vote of the committee. Although Senate rules allow the bill to be considered again at any time, Hoover noted that it is unlikely that the bill will be brought up before the end of the 2010 legislative session.

"This vote today spoke loud and clear," Hoover said. "Members want to move on and address truly pressing issues for the people of Pennsylvania."

Committee members who voted for the motion to table SB 707 included Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll, and Mary Jo White and Democrats Daylin Leach, Lisa Boscola, Wayne Fontana, Michael Stack, and Jay Costa.

Read More...

Why does Petraeus think DOD's DADT study is about whether to follow the Commander in Chief's orders?

Color me confused, but I was pretty sure that the Defense Department's study about Don't Ask Don't Tell was looking at "implementation," and not whether DOD should obey their Commander in Chiefs orders. Funny times we live in. Maybe we can poll every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan about individual troop movements too. You know, to ensure morale and cohesion. Read More...

Dear Kathy Griffin: Please lobby the President on DADT

Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign is all excited that "D-List" celebrity Kathy Griffin will be in DC to lobby for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She's also taping an episode of her reality show, which will get HRC some TV time. (I actually watch the D-List, and had fun defending Griffin after she was attacked for telling Jesus to "suck it.") Hopefully, Ms. Griffin is getting briefed on DADT by someone besides HRC.

HRC has repeatedly said that there's a clear path to repealing DADT this year and the White House has a plan. They're the only ones in town who think so. Barney Frank said last night that the White House is "ambiguous" on whether it wants DADT repealed this year. Barney called on the White House to come clean and say publicly that it wants DADT repealed THIS YEAR.

And the three groups that work solely on DADT -- Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Servicemembers United, and the Palm Center -- are all waiting to hear the White House's plan as well. So is Joe Lieberman, our lead sponsor in the Senate, and Senate Armed Services chair Carl Levin, whose committee the repeal would go through.

According to HRC's breathless email about Griffin's visit:

This week, Kathy Griffin is traveling to Washington to add her voice, by lobbying Members of Congress, meeting with veterans and mobilizing support.

She'll also be holding a "protest" in Freedom Plaza, a small square frequented by skateboarders, and across the street from DC's city hall. It's unclear what such an oddly located protest will accomplish other than getting HRC on Griffin's TV show. We need to be lobbying the White House, not "protesting" in front of the city government that just gave us marriage (and has nothing to do with DADT). But, HRC will never, ever challenge the White House, even now that we know that the President's commitment to DADT repeal this year is "ambiguous."

It's easy to see how Griffin could think things are going well with the White House. After all, in the State of the Union, President Obama said:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

That sounded pretty unequivocal to most people. Apparently, no one on his staff took the President seriously. At the White House press briefing on February 22nd, Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld asked Robert Gibbs a simple question:

Senator Lieberman is planning to introduce a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill next week. Would the president like to see Congress pass repeal this year?

There should have been a simple answer: Yes. But, as we've seen time and again, there's never a simple response from the White House when it comes to LGBT issues. Gibbs refused to answer the question. Kerry asked again. Again he wouldn't answer.

Just yesterday, Barney Frank said the White House is "ambiguous" on repealing DADT this year. That ambiguity sends a dangerous signal to Capitol Hill. Frank also asked the White House to publicly say that the President wants the repeal done this year:

I believe that the Administration should make clear that it supports legislative action this year, and that while implementation is being worked out, it will carry out the policy in the way it was originally intended, which would reduce the number of discharges, in my view, by over 90%."

Everyone who cares about this issue wants the President to be clear. The White House won't do it. And, HRC won't pressure them. In fact, HRC is giving the White House cover by claiming that the White House is committed to repealing DADT this year and that they have a plan, when everyone has now admitted that this is flat out untrue.

The President plays a key role in this process. DADT repeal should be included in the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The President could put repeal language in the policy recommendations that are sent to the Armed Services committees. But we keep hearing that won't happen (nothing ambiguous there). That would send a powerful signal to the Hill that Obama is serious about repeal. Not adding the repeal language also sends a signal to the Hill, a bad one.

No doubt, Ms. Griffin will be palling around with the DC A-list gays. She should know that most of them have ties to the White House and won't challenge the Obama administration. Kathy Griffin can, and should, challenge the President on DADT.

In the real world, this one is a no-brainer. Even Dick and Liz Cheney support ending DADT. Even Colin Powell is now on board. So is 70% of the public, including 60% of Republicans. We can't afford to wait a year, as it's not even clear if we'll still control the Congress after the November elections. And the last time we lost the Congress, it took 14 years to get it back (maybe HRC should book Griffin now for their 2024 protest fundraiser).

If Griffin wants to make news this week, she'll call out the President. If not, she's basically just using our civil rights battle as an episode in her show. It might be fun to watch, and will get HRC some attention, but it will have done nothing to further the cause. Read More...

Uzbek AIDS activist sentenced to 7 years in prison

AFP:

An AIDS activist in Uzbekistan has been sentenced to seven years in prison for writing a brochure that authorities said would promote antisocial behaviour, activists said Thursday.

Maxim Popov was convicted last September, his colleagues told AFP, but his case only came to light this week after US-based watchdog Human Rights Watch asked local activists to investigate his situation.

"Maxim Popov was convicted for writing a brochure which was funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and UNICEF as an effort by international donor organisations to raise awareness about the disease in the country," said an AIDS activist who worked with Popov.

Prosecutors argued that the brochure, which called for the use of condoms during sex and sterile needles when injecting drugs, was promoting immoral behaviour, the activist said.

Read More...

Special election today for New York State Senate seat with marriage equality as a key issue.

Last December, Hiram Monserrate voted against the marriage equality bill in the New York State Senate. He was expected to be a yes vote. This year, Monserrate was expelled from the Senate after a conviction for domestic violence. That created an open seat. A supporter of marriage equality, Jose Peralta, got into the race as the Democratic nominee. Monserrate decided to run again. Today is election day:

In a special election on Tuesday, the choice for some voters will hinge on ideology. Mr. Peralta, a Democrat who represents parts of western Queens in the Assembly, supports same-sex marriage. Mr. Monserrate, who is running as an independent, opposes it. The third candidate is Robert Beltrani, a Republican administrative law judge who has said he does not favor same-sex marriage but would let New Yorkers decide in a referendum. He is considered a long shot.

The same-sex marriage issue is central to a small, yet politically active, part of the electorate. It dominated the debate during the roughly three weeks of campaigning, overshadowing discussions on other issues of interest to the area’s working-class and immigrant residents — like health care, overcrowded schools, unscrupulous landlords and police relations.

This is the first campaign with the involvement of Fight Back NY, a political action committee whose "mission is to defeat anti-equality New York State Senators and replace them with senators who will vote for and pass bills like marriage equality as quickly as possible." The PAC's first target is the double-crossing criminal Hiram Monserrate. Read More...