Email shows HRC lied about DADT bus snafu

Pam and I both wrote about a story yesterday regarding the DADT vets tour, taking place next week, and HRC's refusal to pay for a bus for the vets to get around town (HRC reportedly decided it wanted to spend the money on a reception for its board). HRC sent out a statement denying the report, but honestly, I didn't want to publish it until I got more information because I had a feeling that HRC just might not be telling the truth.

Turns out I was right.

From Pam we learn that HRC wasn't telling the truth in its statement. And we know this because leaked emails from HRC prove that they weren't telling the truth when they issued their statement yesterday. Read More...

On DADT repeal, 'Clearly the world changed dramatically with the Gates letter'

I don't have much to add to this latest report from Kerry Eleveld. The now infamous letter from Secretary Gates on DADT repeal has caused major problems on Capitol Hill, which was, of course, the intent. The White House has to fix it:

Capitol Hill insiders continue to assess the fallout on “don’t ask, don’t tell” following a potentially game-changing letter in which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged House Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton of Missouri not to vote on repeal before the Pentagon completes its implementation study in December.

“Clearly the world changed dramatically with the Gates letter,” said one Hill veteran who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Everyone is trying to figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

The source said that prior to Gates’s letter, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee was just one to two votes shy of the 15 needed to attach a repeal measure to this year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in committee. Folding repeal into the must-pass Defense funding bill in committee would place the onus on those who oppose repeal to find 51 votes to strip out the measure on the Senate floor.

Multiple sources worried that moderate Democrats such as Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia would now be nearly impossible to sway.

“When people are asked to vote against the recommendations of the Defense Secretary, that makes it a very heavy lift,” said the source.

Another Hill insider said the question now is whether it’s possible to usher through some alternative approach, such as taking a repeal vote this year but delaying implementation in accordance with the Pentagon’s preferred timeline.

“But that would require the White House weighing in and changing the dynamic and I’m not confident they will do it,” said the source, who also agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity.

The DADT letter from Gates is the equivalent of last June's DOMA brief from DOJ. Secretary Gates and Attorney General Holder do work for Barack Obama. He is the President, right? They are political appointees, right? Read More...

At DOMA hearing, GLAD challenges that law's constitutionality while DOJ defends it.

Just got a press release from GLAD about the hearing today in a federal court in Boston. GLAD is arguing that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. The Obama administration's Department of Justice is defending DOMA:

“This is a classic equal protection issue. The Constitution applies to gay and lesbian citizens, and married ones, too,” Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director, told the Court. “What governmental purpose does the US have as an employer in treating some of its married employees, retirees and surviving annuitants differently from other married persons, such that Nancy Gill pays for a self and family plan like some of her married colleagues, but the plan doesn’t cover her own spouse?”

Bonauto presented a three-pronged legal argument: By singling out only the marriages of same-sex couples, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into marriage law, which for 230 years has been legislated by states; and by denying federal protections to families, DOMA burdens the marriages of same-sex couples and their right to maintain family integrity.

U.S. District Court Judge, Joseph L. Tauro, vigorously questioned plaintiffs and defendants in a courtroom packed with supporters and media. Judge Tauro heard GLAD’s motion for summary judgment as well as the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The hearing addressed the core issue of whether DOMA Section 3 is constitutional six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Hannah Clay Wareham covered the hearing for Bay Windows. Here initial reporting includes this passage about the DOJ's argument:

Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson, representing the defendants, and Judge Tauro started talking over one another almost right away during Simpson’s opening statement. Simpson tried to present DOMA in a "historical context," saying that the status quo was not the separation of federal and state governments, but rather, heterosexual marriage, and that DOMA was trying to preserve this status quo. He went on to detail how federal recognition of same-sex marriage would confuse federal government programs that heretofore have not recognized same-sex married couples, a supposition which was quickly rebuffed by Judge Tauro. "The matter is so complex it would be a burden on the federal government?" the Judge asked.

Judge Tauro similarly challenged Simpson’s interpretation of heterosexual marriage being the status quo prior to DOMA. "That was a circumstance," the judge said, "there was no law."

And, yes, that's the Scott Simpson who wrote the horrid DOMA incest/pedophilia brief last June. Good to know that who DOJ has fighting against our rights in Boston. Read More...

Rent-boy hiring religious right leader is founder of Family Research Council

FRC had to "do a little research" to find out about its relationship to George Rekers. What they found is that he was one of the founders of their entire organization. Oops. He's also a top name at NARTH, the anti-gay "science" organization. We also learn today that the rent-boy cut his usual $300 to $500 a day rate for sex to only $75 a day to "carry the religious right leader's luggage."

UPDATE: Turns out the luggage carrier/male escort is talking. He was giving daily nude body rubs to Rekers during their European vacation. Read More...

HRC board member invited for concert with the President day after we lost marriage in Maine

As I wrote yesterday, the problem isn't schmoozing with the President. Schmoozing can be good, if you ask for something while you're there, or get something big right before you attend. The problem is that far too often this White House invites power gays for sweet little nothings, like hurriedly thrown together Stonewall cocktails, that are meant to take the place of something big, like repealing DADT and DOMA, or passing ENDA. It just looks bad when an HRC board member is partying at the White House the day after we lose marriage in Maine, and when we lose partly because the President didn't want to help us. It would be less bad, and actually a good, if she ripped the President a new one during her visit. Did she? Read More...

A letter about DADT to Obama from Former Staff Sergeant Anthony Moll

Here's the latest letter from a servicemember impacted by Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's another of SLDN's "Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama":

May 6, 2010

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

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Anthony Moll and I am a bisexual veteran.

I served for eight years under the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that has failed our nation. I left the service just 10 weeks ago, and I can now say: this is the time, Mr. President, to push ahead and end this law.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is just a couple weeks away from holding a key vote on including repeal in the Defense budget. The vote will be close. Please, do whatever you can.

I have been proud to serve my country since joining the Army shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001. My proudest moment was raising my hand and volunteering to serve our country in its time of need.

When I enlisted in 2002, I knew what DADT said, but nothing could prepare me for what it meant.

I had never been closeted about my sexual orientation so joining meant not only keeping quiet, but also being asked to lie to those whom already knew. While my leaders were instilling the values of honesty and integrity in me, the law in place was forcing me to do the opposite.

I knew that despite serving with distinction as a military police officer protecting fellow soldiers and their families from harm, I could face expulsion. During my service I was hand-picked as a Phoenix Raven, an Air Force program in which only a handful of soldiers are asked to participate.

While serving as a handler in the military’s working dog program, I worked with the Secret Service in detecting explosives – working to protect you.

In 2008, I was recognized as my installation’s Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year and Joint Service Member of the Year. Despite this distinction, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law treated me as a second-class citizen.

While I excelled at every turn, this law forced me to be dishonest with my peers, my friends and my community. Our nation’s heroes should not be forced to carry the burden of serving in silence when we need our troops keenly focused on their missions.

In the meantime, I'm not sitting on the sidelines. I am now working at the Human Rights Campaign on its efforts to repeal DADT now. But advocacy alone won't change the status quo.

Mr. President, tell Congress to move on repeal. Please allow my brothers and sisters-in-arms to live up to the Army values of respect, honor and integrity. Don’t let another life be ruined by a failed policy that hurts our nation as well as our heroes.

Mr. President, lift the ban.

Respectfully,
Former Staff Sergeant Anthony Moll
United States Army

Read More...

GLAD's lawsuit against DOMA argued today in federal court in Boston

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, the case against DOMA brought by GLAD on behalf of eight married same-sex couples and three widowers, is being argued today in a federal courtroom in Boston today.

Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney for GLAD, and GLAD's Legal Director Gary Buseck, did a conference call on Tuesday to preview the hearing. She explained that this is not a marriage case. This is about people who are already married but are being treated differently under federal law. And, she explained, "the Theory of case rests on equal protection.”

The crux of the argument is that in Massachusetts, DOMA splits splits mass married people into two classes. One group gets federal protections. That would be married straight couples. One group does not get those protections. That would be the married same-sex couples. That should violate the equal protection clause.

The Department of Justice, according to Bonauto, is a "very powerful adversary." While the DOJ has stated in its recent briefs that the President supports repeal of DOMA, that is "window dressing." DOJ maintains that the judge should apply the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, the rational basis test, in this case. The government would only have to prove a "rational basis" for the legislation meaning "a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard." That's a very low standard considering the rights that are at stake.

GLAD wants a higher scrutiny. But, Bonauto thinks the governments arguments fail anyway. GLAD maintains the DOJ's arguments are "not sensible." I have to agree. I posted the DOJ's brief in the case here.

Legal experts think GLAD's lawsuit presents one of the best cases against DOMA. One certainly gets a sense from Bonauto that she knows exactly what she is doing. I got off the conference call feeling that we are in very good hands. We'll provide updates after the hearing.

One last thing: Bonauto said she believes the DOJ will be represented in court by Scott Simpson. He wrote the infamous DOJ DOMA brief last June that ended up causing such a huge controversy. Read More...