Barney to USAF: 'it would be an unbelievable travesty of justice to discharge' Fehrenbach

Let's hope someone at the Pentagon -- and the White House -- is listening:

The day after the U.S. Air Force agreed to temporarily block the discharge of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, Rep. Barney Frank is asking [pdf] the U.S. Air Force secretary to put an end to discharge proceedings altogether.

Frank writes, “Under any circumstances, the decision to discharge Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach would be not only completely unfair, but a distortion of The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Now that we have agreement among The President, The House and the Senate Armed Services Committee that the policy should be abolished, it would be an unbelievable travesty of justice to discharge him. I strongly urge you to end the proceedings against Lt. Col. Fehrenbach.”

End the proceedings against Fehrenbach and every other servicemember facing discharge under DADT.

Here's an idea: Instead of bitching about bloggers, the White House LGBT liaison Brian Bond should be working to prevent this "unbelievable travesty." That would be a productive use of his time. And, at this point, if Fehrenbach gets discharged, it's Obama's responsibility. Read More...

Join the Blend's live chat with Katherine Miller who left West Point over DADT

Tonight, beginning just about now, at 7:30 PM, Pam is hosting a live chat with Katherine Miller, the former West Point cadet, who resigned because she's a lesbian. Last week, she appeared on the Rachel Maddow show in a piece titled, "America's Best and Brightest discouraged by DADT." That video is here. Under DADT, her "integrity has been compromised." Pam has more here.

This is a very impressive woman -- and Katherine's resignation is a loss for the U.S. military. Her letter, Written Statement of Resignation and Formal Disclosure of Homosexual Orientation, is here.

UPDATE: The chat is over, but can be viewed here. Read More...

Barry Winchell's parents write: End DADT and urge Senators 'be on the right side of history'

Very powerful op-ed today from Pat and Wally Kutelles, the parents of Barry Winchell:

The coffee was brewing and we were just starting our day when the telephone rang the morning of July 5, 1999. It was a call that every parent prays never will come.

The Army colonel was calling from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where our son was based in the U.S. Army. A fellow soldier had attacked our son, Barry Winchell. He had been taken to a civilian hospital in Nashville, Tennessee.

We raced to the Kansas City airport. When we arrived at the hospital, Barry was clinging to life. His face was unrecognizable. Contrary to what the colonel had said on the telephone, Barry had not been kicked in the head by the other soldier. He had been beaten with a baseball bat as he slept in the barracks. The doctor said he had irreparable brain damage and recovery was unlikely.

Barry had been a victim of constant, vicious harassment after another soldier -- one of two involved in his murder -- started a rumor that he was gay.

Several of Barry's superiors were witnesses to the harassment, yet did nothing about it. Some of those superiors not only did nothing to stop the escalation of violence that would lead to our son's death, they also took part in the harassment.

Barry's parents have been stalwart allies in the campaign to end DADT. We're at a pivotal point in the debate. So, they've spoken out again:

The attitude of society toward gays serving in the military has changed in the 17 years since DADT went into effect. It's no longer the divisive issue it used to be. When we go to Capitol Hill, we talk about the change we've witnessed in our lifetimes on LGBT -- lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered -- issues. It's clear to us that the younger generation of service members couldn't care less about sexual orientation. But they couldn't care more about integrity and honesty, serving one's country and being supportive of their comrades.

Our work to repeal the law that contributed to our son's death has given us focus. We look forward to the day when this law is repealed and when the armed forces adopt a policy that demonstrates clearly that all service members, including those who are gay or lesbian, are worthy of serving our country with dignity and integrity.

Only then can our sons and daughters feel safe in reporting harassment. Only then will their superiors, up the chain of command, be held fully responsible for protecting our sons and daughters equally, no matter what their sexual orientation.

Soon, members of the U.S. Senate will have an opportunity to ensure that Barry's death was not in vain, that no other young man or woman will be denied the chance to serve the country they love simply because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has said it is the right thing to do. We urge senators to stand with Admiral Mullen and be on the right side of history.

Read More...

Colbert on marriage equality in Mexico

Stephen Colbert explains the threat posed to the US by the Mexican Supreme Court ruling that all Mexican states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City.

Read More...

A pill to cure the gay?

I don't need to be cured. I just need to be pampered. From the LA Times:

Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.

A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It's not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.

Read More...

Woman in Germany faces trial for having sex without warning partners she was HIV+

An interesting case. I'm one who believes that if you're HIV positive, if you have hepatitis, if you have a really bad cold, you really ought to tell your sexual partner(s) before doing the deed. Especially the first two, since you'll get over a cold. I've talked with people who disagree with me - they think it's the duty of the other person to ask if you're HIV+. But even then, there's nothing to stop you from lying.

Who has the duty? And should they be charged with a crime if they don't tell you (without asking) or if they don't tell (and you did ask)?

Interesting argument from the BBC:

Edwin Bernard, a writer and advocate specialising in HIV prosecutions, believes that prosecutions and laws on HIV transmission may do more harm than good in terms of reducing the spread of infections.

He told BBC World Service that studies in the US had found that they have had no real impact on new infections.

When the 24 US states which have disclosure laws were compared with those that do not, there was no impact on the rate of transmission or the level of unprotected sex people engage in, he said.

"By singling out HIV, it really promotes fear and stigma," Mr Bernard added.

Then again, it's not just about incentives. Laws exist to also punish. But, if such laws promote a stigma around AIDS, they could make it harder to educate and treat people, so that's another issue you have to consider.

Your thoughts? Read More...

White House frustrated with gay bloggers

Feeling's mutual.

From an account by Michael Kenny, executive director of Florida Together, of a White House meeting last week with state-based equality groups.

Marriage Equality In the meeting's closing stages, Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and liaison to the LGBT community, took questions from the audience. Given recent statements reaffirming President Obama's opposition to same-gender marriage in the wake of a decision striking down California's Proposition 8, Equality Federation members pressed him on the contradictions posed by the president's call for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and his support for civil unions instead of full marriage equality.

Bond asserted, "There is still a lot of work to do" before DOMA will be repealed. "Look at the trouble we're having with ENDA." he added.But Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama's positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, "Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country." Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is "99 percent supportive of your issues." [emphasis added]

It's great that you're "supportive." But it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they'd say, even if he didn't help us a whole lot legislatively. I'm not saying you're George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don't want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you're not. Read More...

Ed Meese cites Obama and Hillary as siding with him against marriage quality

It's time for Obama and Hillary both to stop giving aid and comfort to our enemies. They are being quoted, left and right, by today's modern day segregationists, and it needs to end.

[A]ccording to the federal district court, Americans such as President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the majority of members of Congress and the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 are all bigots who have "no rational reason" to oppose gay marriage.

The court didn't say they're bigots. The court said they're endorsing bigotry. And they are. The same way the majority of Americans endorsed bigotry against blacks decades ago. Didn't make it right then, doesn't make it right now.

I do, however, get a kick out of the argument that the majority simply can't be wrong about a matter of civil rights. Yeah, becaus that's never happened.

PS This op ed makes me glad I snorted once as Ed Meese walked by me on a Washington sidewalk in the late 80s, earl 90s. Read More...