Boston Cardinal showed support for 8-year old student with lesbian parents

Last week, a Catholic school in Hingham, Massachusetts rejected the admission of an eight year old because his moms are lesbians. My post is here.

Nothing surprises me about the Catholic Church's homophobia. What did surprise me was Cardinal Sean O'Malley's response to the situation. Believe it or not, he did the right thing:

Here’s a sentence I wasn’t expecting to write: The Archdiocese of Boston did something exactly right last week.

After a Hingham Catholic school revoked its acceptance of an 8-year-old because his parents are lesbians, the Catholic Schools Foundation, chaired by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, sent out a gorgeous letter making it clear that that kind of cruelty is not what the church is about.

“We believe a policy that denies admission to students in such a manner . . . is at odds with our values as a Foundation . . . and ultimately with Gospel teaching,’’ it read. The archdiocese will formalize an inclusive policy in coming weeks.

I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. It's a small step, but all progress starts with small steps. Read More...

Update on DADT from SLDN: Votes expected next week in House and Senate Committee

Just got off a conference call with SLDN's Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis. He gave an update on what's happening with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The key players are doing what we can to bring Secretary Gates back to the table after the now-infamous April 30th "no repeal this year" letter. The bottom line is that the Secretary's public posture is that there shouldn't be a repeal vote this year before the Pentagon's report on DADT is finished.

SLDN has been pushing a repeal bill that provides for "coordinated and delayed implementation." Under that scenario, there would be repeal language added to the House and Senate versions of the Defense authorization bills. That legislation won't make it onto President Obama's desk until mid-October. Assuming a delayed implementation, the final repeal would take place sometime next year.

According to Sarvis, Rep. Patrick Murphy is convinced that he has votes for full repeal in the House. Tomorrow, the House Armed Services Committee is marking up H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011.

There should be no DADT-related votes on repeal in Committee tomorrow. That's based on an agreement with Rep. Skelton, but there's always a chance that some Republican could offer a hostile amendment. House Armed Services is considered one of the most conservative committees in the House. Sarvis thinks that not having a vote in the Committee was the right call to make.

During week of the May 24th, Sarvis reported, the Rules Committee will most likely accept Speaker Pelosi's request to allow Reps. Murphy and Davis to offer a DADT repeal amendment to the Defense bill when it's being debated on the floor of the House. (Every House amendment must be approved by the Rules Committee.) That floor vote on the amendment would be towards the end of next week -- either Thursday, May 27th or Friday, May 28th.

SLDN is making a big push in the Senate Armed Services Committee. We need 15 votes on that 28-member panel.

As of now, it looks like we can expect a vote next week in Senate Armed Services Committee. Chairman Carl Levin intends to call that vote, which should occur on Thursday, May 27th. Sarvis said that Chairman Levin is "a real hero on the Senate side. Without his tenacity and determination, we wouldn't be alive there." And, he noted that Levin is "determined to get this done...this year." Levin will be lobbying one-on-one with every member on the Democratic side who is not a co-sponsor and even some Republicans.

SLDN wants the Senate bill to closely mirror the House legislation. The language in the two bodies should be very similar so there's little room for making changes in conference. In conference, the "big four" make the decisions. That group is comprised of the top ranking members of the Armed Services Committee of both parties in both houses: Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Rep. Skelton and Rep. McKeon. Three of the "big four" oppose repealing DADT. So, when and if we get to conference, we'll have to monitor it very closely.

Sarvis said the Gates letter "hasn't had the impact on the House side that we feared." In the Senate, he said, there is still a sentiment among some Senators that they would like us to find a way to resolve the differences and bring Sec. Gates back to the table. But, he added, "That's a tall order." Gates has to see that the committee is prepared to proceed without him, but would prefer to do it with him.

Sarvis said Chairman Levin is beginning to feel more confident but we're still not there and "we've got to keep pushing." He said it's critical for people on our side to be on the phone, calling Capitol Hill if we're going to get this thing done this year. He reiterated that "we're still not there yet."

As for the White House, SLDN is still hoping that the President will weigh in before the votes, but that probably won't happen given the Gates letter. And, the White House won't be sending a repeal message to Congress: "It's unlikely that we're going to see a transmittal up to the Hill that would include repeal."

According to Sarvis, over the next week, the main challenge is to find the votes in Senate Armed Services Committee.

The White House had been insisting that no one from the White House congressional liaison's office was stating they didn't want a vote on DADT this year. But, Secretary Gates, who is part of the Obama administration, wasn't shy at all about saying that he and people on his staff were on the Hill telling offices that they did not want to take a vote on repeal this year. And, according to Sarvis, people on hill were saying they had been lobbied "big time" by the Pentagon.

The White House and the Pentagon are now on the same talking points about "the process." Sarvis made it clear that we need the President to be engaged and asking Senators to for vote for repeal. He said, "that's not happening and the question is why?" That is an important question. Let's review one more time what the President said during the State of the Union:

This year — 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. It’s the right thing to do.

It's still the right thing to do. But, as we enter this crucial phase, Obama's Secretary of Defense is on-the-record saying he doesn't want a repeal this year. And, at best, the White House is "on the sidelines" saying nothing.

It's crunch time. SLDN needs everyone to call their members of Congress. So call all three: both Senators and your Representative. The main switchboard at the Capitol is 202-224-3121.

As votes approach, every call is important. The other side will be going overboard. But, it's especially critical to make calls if one of these six members of the Senate Armed Services Committee is your Senator:

Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska)
Bill Nelson (D-Florida)
Evan Bayh (D-Indiana)
Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)

Call, because "we're still not there yet." Next week, we'll know if it's going to happen.

UPDATE: Just to clarify, if the Senate Armed Services Committee adds repeal language to the Defense Authorization bill, it's unlikely that provision will be stripped from the bill on the Senate floor. In fact, at the Senate hearing on February 2nd, Chairman Levin and Senator Lieberman had a colloquy about this very subject:

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I appreciate that.

And, look, then the final, obviously, is that it’s up to us in the Congress and in the Senate. We’ve got to – we’ve got to get 60 votes to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell, or else it will remain in effect. Thank you.

SEN. LEVIN: Unless there’s a provision inside the Defense authorization bill; that goes to the floor, which would then require an amendment to strike it from the bill; in which case the 60-vote rule would be turning the other way. In fact --

Read More...

Upping the pressure for a vote on ENDA

Later today, a coalition called ENDANow is holding a protest outside of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office in San Francisco to demand a vote on ENDA.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in conjunction with several other groups, just concluded a press conference here in DC also making that same demand. ENDANow live tweeted from the event. Via those tweets, NGLTG's Rea Carey said, "We're here to demand that Congress pass ENDA without delay."

As we noted last week, there have already been many delays and broken promises on ENDA. And, it looks like there will be further delays.

Coincidentally (or not), yesterday, Speaker Pelosi hosted a conference call with representatives from several advocacy groups, though notably not the Task Force nor GetEQUAL. She laid out timelines and hurdles to passage of ENDA and the repeal of DADT. There could be a DADT vote next week when the House considers the 2011 Defense authorization bill. The looming issue for ENDA is whatever the GOP concocts as a "motion to recommit." Kerry Eleveld has the scoop on Pelosi's conference call:

On the call, the Speaker suggested that the motion to recommit could be harsher than activists originally anticipated, and said that while she believed ENDA could pass if it were put to vote right now, she was concerned that progressive Democrats could not overcome a narrowly targeted motion to recommit.

However, the second source added that Pelosi said she did not intend to leave this Congress without putting ENDA to a vote in the House. “It’s not one or the other,” the source recalled Pelosi saying in reference to ENDA and DADT.

If ENDA is not called to vote this week and the House considers DADT next week, any vote on employment protections legislation would be pushed back at least into the second week of June, after lawmakers return from a weeklong recess during the first week. ENDA has yet to be voted on in committee, but LGBT advocates anticipate that the House vote will commence shortly after committee passage.

The call included several Pelosi aides and representatives from a mix of DC- and California-based organizations: the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality California, the Transgender Law Center, and the Equality Federation.

The further the vote gets pushed back, the harder it will be to bring it to the floor. Many in Pelosi's caucus don't want to take any more "hard" or "controversial" votes. On Capitol Hill, LGBT = controversial. (They only really like us during campaign season when we donate or volunteer.) Read More...

Please don't mention the g-a-y when talking about Elena Kagan

There's a rather interesting article in the NYT about the Elena Kagan saga, in which President Obama's Supreme Court nominee has had to dog rumors that she's gay, in part because she's middle aged and unmarried (but not the only reason). Funny thing about the story, no mention of the words gay, lesbian, or sexual orientation. They're omitted 100% from the story, when that is pretty much what motivated the entire story - the never-ending rumors, and press speculation (sotto voce though most of it was), about whether Kagan was gay.

It's a glaring omission from an article about why a middle aged unmarried woman has to explain her family choices. And I think it's an intentional one, and a sad one. The media feels the need to "protect" gays and lesbians to such a degree, that they're now protecting reportedly straight people who have been asked whether they're gay.

The fact that lots of people, including the media, wondered whether Kagan was lesbian is news. It's a story. And you need no other proof than this very article in the NYT - they found the phenomenon newsworthy per se, or they wouldn't have written about it. If she can prove she's straight, more power to her. But let's stop pretending that it's defamatory to simply ask the question.

And to those who would say that her sexual orientation is irrelevant, that's absurd. There are no out gays on the Supreme Court, there are no out gays in the Obama Cabinet. There never have been any out gays in either body, under any president. And no one seriously believes that the President would ever appoint someone openly gay to either the Supreme Court (or his Cabinet). So to suggest that Kagan's sexual orientation is irrelevant, when it would have been an automatic disqualifier for the job, even under a Democratic president, is absurd. Read More...

Anti-gay member of Congress quitting over affair with staffer

Indiana Congressman Mark Souder is quitting over an affair he had with a female staffer.

Souder has long been a crusader in the House against same-sex marriage. This year, he signed an amicus brief in a case against D.C.'s new marriage law.

Souder's Congressional website includes a September 22, 2009 podcast on "Homosexual Government Employee Benefits," which Souder sees as a "backdoor" way to get marriage. He added:

This is a very, stormy controversial, difficult subject. As Christians, we have to be very careful. It's not clear how once you start to redefine marriage in these ways how you don't have multiple wives.

He also stated, "I'm a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third." Not sure where "adulterer" fits in.

There's also one from June of 2008 on "Homosexual Marriage," in which he explained how gay marriage was going to take over the country. Also, there are four podcasts from May of 2008 and this video from November of 2009 on abstinence education. Seems he didn't heed his own words, huh? Oh wait. Right wing hypocrites just tell the rest of us how to live. They don't have to practice what they preach. Read More...

A letter about DADT to Barack and Michelle Obama from a mother in the closet

Today's letter in SLDN's "Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama" is from the mother of a gay son who is serving his country. And, it's addressed to the President and the First Lady.

Time is running out for repeal this year. That's what the President promised in his State of the Union. Someone at the White House should be reading these letters. This isn't a political issue for the servicemembers and their families. It's their lives:

May 18, 2010

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

Dear Mr. President and First Lady Obama,

I have been a mom for over a quarter of a century, but I remember each of my children’s births with such joy. I remember my son’s birth. We had picked a boy’s name and a girl’s name, deciding to wait and see. My labor was easy. As the baby was born, the doctor exclaimed that he was a boy! He was doing so well that we brought him home to meet his big sister that very morning.

From the start our son was easygoing and peaceful. He grew to be curious, mischievous, active and strong. He was skiing as soon as he could walk. Our son was fearless, whether he was skiing, skating, riding a bike, or climbing up a rock face. He excelled in team sports as well as individual sports, several times placing in the top ten in U.S. and World competitions.

As a young adolescent, however, he struggled in school. He didn’t fit in. We assumed it was because he was gifted and bored with the assignments. As he went on to high school, his struggles continued. He dropped out, completing his GED on his own, and moved on to college without a clear direction.

During those difficult times, he would come to me late at night, and we would talk things over. As a mom, I treasured those long conversations, happy I could be there for him, and despite his struggles, very proud of the young man he was becoming. One night, perhaps a decade ago, he wanted to talk. On this night, my son said, “Mom, I’m gay.” I immediately told him that no matter what, I loved him. (Later, when he came out to his dad, his father’s reaction was just the same.)

With this knowledge came a new responsibility to honor his right to be in control of who knew and who didn’t. And so began a new phase of our lives: living in the closet.

Our son pondered what to do with his life. One day he came home and announced he had joined the military. He was flush with excitement, fully aware of the risk he was undertaking, but, at the same time, so determined to serve. He excelled in Basic Training. He trained for his job and enjoyed his work as an enlisted man. He deployed abroad. He grew up in front of our eyes.

The officers above him recognized his drive and his ability, and helped him to get into a military program that sent him back to finish college and then commissioned him as an officer. He is well on his way to becoming a military pilot. Not long from now, he’ll earn his wings.

This baby, this boy, this man makes his Mom so proud. But as I think about his life forced in the closet from this “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it makes waiting for repeal another day that much harder.

Mom’s have lots of dreams when they have babies. All of you moms know what I am talking about. What if your child had to live a lie; had to remain alone through their best and brightest years? My dream for my son is that the United States of America would wake up and realize that times have changed, that people who happen to be gay or lesbian are really just like the rest of us, with the same aspirations, the same needs, and the same goals.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” throws more than just service people into the closet; it throws moms, dads, siblings, grandparents, godparents, friends and loved ones in there as well.

As a mom, my heart breaks for all the gay and lesbian “kids” in the military, and for all the special people in their lives who live with us in the closet.

I dream of actually being able to write to the President, my senators and representatives in the Congress, and actually signing my name, something I can’t do now due to the risk of outing my son.

I dream of the day when my son won’t have to live in fear, even as he works to keep the rest of us from living in fear.

And yes, as a mom, I dream of my son getting married to the man of his dreams. I dream they will have all the rights that my husband and I do. I dream that my son won’t have to wait through his entire military career to find love. We all yearn for love.

Today, even in the closet, I dare to dream.

Signed,

A mother in the closet

(The writer is unable to identify herself publicly without risk to her son’s military career.)

Read More...