Anderson Cooper on DADT

Elaine Donnelly, the bigot debating Dan Choi, made the same illogical argument she's always made. She's fine with gays and lesbians serving so long as they don't admit who they are. But then, she argues that if gays are permitted to be open about who they are, it would be like a male soldier sharing a shower or a bedroom with a female soldier.

Cute. Except that she already admitted that the gays and lesbians are already serving, they're already there, they're simply not disclosing who they are. In other words, that female soldier is already in your shower and your bedroom, you just aren't sure which fellow service member she is, so you end up suspecting everyone and trusting no one. And more generally, the point is therefore moot - if your privacy is being violated at all, it already is under the current policy, so changing the policy does nothing in that regard.

Read More...

House defeated effort to strip Hate Crimes bill from Def. Authorization

Tonight, House Republicans, who can never miss an opportunity to show their animus towards LGBT Americans, offered a "motion to instruct" to the House conferees on the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Their non-binding motion would have instructed the conferees to remove the Hate Crimes language from the DoD bill. This is one of the few procedural tools House GOPers have at their disposal. Fortunately, their motion failed by a vote of 178 - 234. Nine Republicans voted no. 22 Democrats sided with the Republicans.

In July, the Senate broke a filibuster to attach the Hate Crimes language to the DoD authorization bill as an amendment. That same process happened in 2007. In April, the House passed the Hate Crimes bill as a free-standing legislation. That also happened in 2007.

So, it looks like the hate crimes legislation could finally become law. Michael Cole at HRC BackStory answers the question, What's next?:

House Conferees have been appointed and a vote on the final conference report in the House is expected on Thursday. The Senate action on the conference report should follow next week and then the bill will go to President Obama for his signature. Finally the federal government will have the tools it needs to help combat hate-motivated violence.

We all owe enormous gratitude to Judy Shepard for her tireless work on this issue. Read More...

Mormon governor of Utah thinks it's okay to discriminate against gays

It's a good thing the Mormons have never faced discrimination or prejudice, because the way they're constantly trying to beat up on everyone else, it's hard to imagine anyone defending them should, some day, they ever find themselves on the receiving end of prejudice. Read More...

In Maine, Anti-gay side keeps up the lies with newest ad

The Stand for Marriage Campaign, led by the Catholic Bishop of Maine, has launched its third t.v. ad last night. Like the other two, this falsely ad claims that Maine's marriage equality law will require the teaching of "homosexual marriage" in Maine schools. This time, the Bishop's campaign uses California to bolster its claim. The tag line is "Vote Yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being pushed on Maine students." It's a confusing, disjointed ad and pretty much a parody of itself:

The Yes side's "education" claim has already been debunked by newspapers across Maine. Two of Maine's more conservative papers, The Bangor Daily News and the Lewiston Sun-Journal, dismissed the argument that the new marriage equality law has anything to do with educating kids. Because, it DOESN'T. The important thing isn't just that those papers ran the editorials, it's that our side can use those editorials in our ads to show the Yes on 1 side is spewing falsehoods. In Maine, it probably helps more that papers in Lewiston and Bangor think the Yes side's ads aren't factual.

The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, has learned something from his anti-gay counterparts in the Mormon church. He's "lying for the lord." Bishop Malones owns the "Yes on 1" campaign the way the Mormons owned "Yes on Prop. 8."

And, via Jeremy Hooper, the guy "starring" in the ad, Donald Mendell, is a renowned homophobe. Read More...

Microsoft contributed $100,000 to Approve Referendum 71

Microsoft is delivering for equality in its home state. Yesterday, The SLOG reported that the company donated $100,000 to the Approve Referendum 71 campaign:

Asserting itself as a powerful advocate for gay rights, the Microsoft Corporation donated $100,000 to the campaign trying to approve Referendum 71, a report filed today with the state Public Disclosure Commission shows (.pdf). If voters approve the measure, they will uphold the state's domestic-partnership law, but a recent poll shows that only 51 percent of likely voters support the referendum.

This took guts. Microsoft's brazen role in R-71 will outrage the Ken Hutchersons of the world, who pressured Microsoft for years to back off from supporting gay-rights legislation. And it could also summon conservative interests—e.g., the Mormon Church—to dump money in on the other side. After October 12, state rules block any person or group from donating more than $5,000 to the campaign.

Back in April of 2005, we learned, via Dan Savage at The SLOG, that Microsoft was backing away from its support of an LGBT equality bill in the Washington legislature. It's easy to forget just how scary things were back in the spring of 2005. George Bush won re-election with a gay-bashing campaign and the gay-haters were feeling empowered. It seemed like our last bastion of support was corporate America. AMERICAblog launched a campaign to get Microsoft to back down -- and, they did. Look at Microsoft now. They're doing what they should be doing.

Approve Referendum 71 needs help to win. The campaign has set up an ActBlue page here. Read More...

D.C. marriage equality bill to be introduced, has Congressional implications

This morning, the marriage equality bill will be introduced in the D.C. City Council -- and it will pass in the near future. But, Congress has the power to review and reject D.C.'s laws. Yes, we don't get a vote in Congress, but Congress can overrule what our elected officials do. It's infuriating. So, the real attention isn't only on what the City Council and Mayor do (although we can't take anything for granted), it's on what Congress does:

Given the stakes for the gay community locally and nationally, many city leaders and activists have begun calculating how Congress might react to the sight of same-sex couples getting married in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol.

In an interview, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said she had received assurances from House Democratic leaders that she doesn't need to worry about congressional intervention.

"The House and Senate have their plates really full," Norton said. "I don't think this is anything that is going to somehow scramble over into that."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who tried to derail a bill passed by the council this year recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, also expressed doubts that he or other Republicans could be major obstacles.

"Given the gravity of health care and other tumultuous debate, it hasn't got much attention," said Chaffetz, the ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the District. "You couple that with the Democrats' stranglehold on the rules, and the minority is left somewhat impotent."

Chaffetz said he plans to fight the council's bill, but he also said the issue could become entangled in a debate among Republicans on Capitol Hill over how far the party should go in speaking out against same-sex marriage.

Chaffetz is a hard-core, anti-gay zealot from Utah. It's interesting that he realizes the House GOPers are "impotent." It's also fascinating that Republicans are arguing about "how far" they should on the issue of same-sex marriage. Gay-bashing has become a tenet of the GOP, spurred on by its theocratic base. They're debating it now? We need to know more about that. Read More...