If gays were poker chips....

We've been told that "time is our enemy" on getting DADT repealed because the Senate has so many other crucial issues to focus on during this lame duck session - issues more important than the national defense bill, apparently.

We've already learned that one of those issues is the impeachment of a judge that probably none of you have ever heard of, and can wait until next year. Well, another crucial issue has arisen that is also more important than our national defense (and our civil rights) - online gambling.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing behind the scenes for lame-duck legislation that would allow poker games over the Internet but restrict initial licenses to casinos and racetrack operators that have been in businesses at least five years.

Some of the biggest casino operators in Reid's home state of Nevada are eager to get a piece of the online gambling industry, which generates an estimated $5 billion a year for offshore operators.

I'm sure the ability to gamble online will be comforting to all the gay kids thinking of killing themselves because our government continues to tell them that they're not equal. Read More...

Elated McCain kisses generals at DADT hearing

More from Satirewire. Read More...

Prop 8 court case watching party in LA Monday

UPDATE: We'll be hosting a live chat during the arguments before the Ninth Circuit. We will be joined by our own Liz Newcomb and USC Law Professor David Cruz. The arguments begin at 10:00 AM PT. We'll start at 12:30 PM ET/9:30 AM PT.

Televised Viewing of 9th Circuit Prop 8 Challenge to be Hosted by
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Lambda Legal on Dec. 6

(Los Angeles, November 30, 2010) — On Monday, Dec. 6, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal lawsuit challenging the validity of California’s Proposition 8.

The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, together with Lambda Legal, will host a free viewing of the televised proceedings, on a large screen in the Center’s Renberg Theatre, for all who are interested in watching.

Following the arguments, LGBT leaders will be available for interviews with the media, including: Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal who will provide legal analysis, and the Center’s Senior Policy Counsel, Sky Johnson. Francisco Dueñas, coordinator of Lambda Legal’s Proyecto Igualdad,will be available for Spanish-language interviews.

WHEN: 9:30 a.m., Monday, December 6, 2010

Hearing begins at 10 a.m. and is expected to last approximately two hours

WHERE: L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
The Village at Ed Gould Plaza
1125 N. McCadden Place
Los Angeles, CA 90038

WHO: Sky Johnson, Senior Policy Counsel, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

Jon Davidson, Legal Director for Lambda Legal

Francisco Dueñas, Lambda Legal Proyecto Igualdad

**Limited street parking available**
###

Contact: Jason Pérez Howe/Lambda Legal, Office: 213-382-7600 ext.247; Cell: 415-595-9245
Stevie St. John/L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Office: 323-993-7622

Read More...

Sargent: What about the gay service members?

An excellent point, and piece, by Greg Sargent over at the Washington Post:

One thing that's been oddly missing from the debate in the Senate over repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is any discussion of the moral and human dimensions of this story. The discussion has mostly been bone dry: It's all about what the statistics in the Pentagon report actually reveal and whether Robert Gates will implement repeal on a sufficiently flexible timetable.

Indeed, when Senator James Webb today asked the Service Chiefs a simple question about the human beings impacted by this discriminatory policy, everyone at the hearing acted a bit startled. Webb asked: What should we do with patriotic Americans who have already served our country for years, and want to lead free and open lives? Everyone looked uncomfortable, as if Webb had gone way off topic,

Greg has a lot more. Read it. Read More...

IL State Senator blasted the hypocrisy of opponents of the civil unions bill

This video has been making the rounds for the past couple days. It's amazing.

I would love to hear someone in Congress give this speech. Because, there's a ton of hypocrisy on Capitol Hill, too.

Senator Rickey Hendon knows voting for the civil unions won't send him to hell.
Read More...

GOP Senator Scott Brown will support DADT repeal

This is great news, and it helps shift momentum our way. Specifically, it puts more pressure on other GOP moderates like Snowe and Collins, and also on Dem conservatives. What remains to be seen is whether Brown supports cloture on the defense bill itself (there are various cloture votes). He could support cloture on DADT but not support it on the bill, thus taking DADT down anyway. So more details need to come out. But still, this is good news.

"I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.

"I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary's recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed."

Read More...

Live chat for Day 2 of Senate hearings on the Pentagon's DADT report

UPDATE from John: While you're watching this hearing, and watching Marine Corps Commandant James Amos spew an incredible amount of homophobia, and undercut his own commander in chief on national television, keep one thing in mind. President Obama just appointed this guy. He took over the Marine Corps a whopping 6 weeks ago. And he's already undercutting one of the President's alleged top priorities, and more generally, is making a fool of the commander in chief.

So, the question is, who exactly in the White House came up with the idea of picking a new Marine Commandant who was violently opposed to the repeal of DADT? Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you people stupid or something? Shall we buy you a "My First Presidency" doll for Christmas, so you can learn how to be the leader of the free world?

Sarcasm aside, how the hell do you pick someone for a job and not pay attention to the fact that he is violently opposed to a top priority of your boss, to the point that he's willing to publicly embarrass you, not just six weeks after he takes the job, but actually his second week on the job.

Either the White House is filled with the Keystone Cops of politics, or the President simply didn't give enough of a damn about the repeal of DADT to pick a new Marine Corps head who was for repeal, or even just loyal enough to keep his F'g mouth shut.

This is why the President Obama has overseen an absolute meltdown in relations between the gay community and Democratic party. Not because he's been 99% ineffective at accomplishing anything significant with regards to our civil rights, but rather that he repeatedly seems to not even be interested in trying. This was a huge gaffe, picking Amos. An idiotic, sophomoric gaffe. Or worse, the President knew exactly what he was doing.

Just an astoundingly stupid decision. Was this your doing, Jim Messina?

PS One final point. Does the White House not understand how weak this makes the President look, having all of his service chiefs publicly rebuking him, like he's some child? Why reinforce that meme, that the President is weak, that you can undermine him with impunity? This was an incredibly dumb decision on so many levels, far beyond its impact on DADT.

Read More...

Jon Stewart on DADT and John McCain

The second round of Senate Armed Services Committee on the Pentagon's DADT report begin at 9:00 AM ET. We'll set up another livechat. Today's hearings could be intense. Secretary Gates has said several times that the expects the Service Chiefs to be more "sanguine" about the report. And, the Service Chiefs are John McCain's last line of defense. Which brings me to Jon Stewart. Watch him eviscerate McCain. It will help you get through today's hearing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gaypocalypse Now
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Read More...

Mullen and Obama

A friend writes:

Did you see what Adm. Mullen said when McCain challenged him on his testimony on DADT saying that he was not in command of troops? Or at least not in direct command?

He said this:

"With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that, as chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a service chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.

"You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor."

If the White House sends this guy out with a mission, and he doesn’t just follow orders, but reaches into his own heart to explain why those orders are right, and stands up to a hypocritical bully, and they throw him under a bus, no one in the world has enough money to bribe me to vote for Barack Obama again.

I will just tune out and wait for you to advise me on who to support in the Democratic primary that I will be pissed off if we do not have.

Read More...

Cranky John McCain

Wonderful write up on the ass John McCain made of himself at today's Senate Armed Services DADT report hearing. From HuffPost Hill:

McCain really brought the cranky at today's hearing: First he complained that there wasn't enough time to adequately address the issue. In an effort to placate his colleague, committee chair Carl Levin added an extra minute to each senator's allotted time and Robert Gates pledged to stay an extra half-hour. Then McCain used his extra time to question Gates about the Wikileaks controversy, moments after whining about the cramped schedule. Despite an opening statement that accused the Pentagon report on gays and lesbians in uniform of being flawed, McCain cited a section showing opposition to DADT repeal among Marines. We don't know who forgot to put raisins in John McCain's oatmeal this morning but...yeesh...that is one cantankerous senior citizen. May God be with the pimply checkout clerk that has to deal with John McCain and an expired coupon book.

Read More...

Rumors of White House cave on tax cuts, DADT, Dream and more

We are hearing from multiple sources that this is true. Read More...

No DOMA, ENDA or DADT, but how about a panel at a conference?

From National Journal:

HELP FOR GAYS. Eager to soothe jagged relationships with an impatient gay community, the White House is dispatching two senior members of its personnel office, as well as Fred Hochberg, the chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, to hold a workshop with gay rights leaders and donors in town for the annual Victory Fund Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference. A workshop will include advice from White House officials on how to “enhance your application and boost your chances for nomination or appointment,” the conference program promises.

Read More...

Old John McCain thinks surveys are still conducted by Pony Express

Some people still think surveys are conducted via the Pony Express, apparently. Read this incredibly naive statement by John McCain, the lead Republican bigot trying to bully gays because he lost the presidential election:

“What I can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns about what questions were not asked by this survey and considered in this report, I am troubled by the fact that this report only represents the input of 28 percent of the force who received the questionnaire. That is only six percent of the force at large. I find it hard to view that as a fully-representative sample set, but I am nonetheless weighing the contents of this report on their merits. What appears clear at this time is that the survey and anecdotal data underlying this report do not lead to one unequivocal conclusion, which is no surprise considering the complex and difficult nature of this issue."

Beyond naive. First off, a 28% response rate is HUGE for any survey. Second, in 2010, as compared to 1864, you only need a few thousand people to answer a survey in order to get a good sample. Third, if lifting DADT was such a big deal that hundreds of thousands of troops would quick - McCain's claim - wouldn't you think those troops would at least answer a five minute survey about that decision, a survey that could effectively kill that decision? In fact, 72% of the service members didn't respond to the survey request because they didn't care. That's a huge data point. Read More...

Joint Chiefs chair Admiral Mullen DADT testimony

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sen. McCain and distinguished members of this committee.

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.

And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

I do not discount for a moment the findings in the Johnson-Hamm survey which indicate resistance to repeal by those in the combat arms and irregular warfare communities. I do not find these concerns trivial or inconsequential. Nor do I believe we can afford to ignore them. Given that this reluctance arises from the ranks of the very troops upon which much of the burden of these wars has fallen, we would do well to pay heed and to move forward in a deliberate and measured manner.

Whatever risk there may be to repeal of this law, it is greatly mitigated by the thorough implementation plan included in the study, the time to carry out that plan, and effective, inspirational leadership.

These are the things I know for a fact. These are the things the study tells us. Now let me tell you what I believe.

I believe our troops and their families are ready for this. Most of them already believe they serve or have served alongside gays and lesbians. And knowing matters a lot. Those who said they knew they were serving with a gay or lesbian were consistently more positive in their assessment of the impact of repeal across all dimensions – cohesion, effectiveness, retention, even privacy concerns.

Our families feel the same. Most of our spouses know at least one gay or lesbian and very few of them believe repeal of the law would have any effect on family readiness.

This tracks with my personal experience. I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career. I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. And what’s more, nearly everyone in the crew knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target. Readiness was not impaired. What mattered most, what made us a crew, was teamwork and focus on our combat mission.

Back then, of course, it was a different time. Society on the whole wasn’t as accepting or as tolerant as it is now. So, we didn’t speak of such things or of how little it really mattered that the Sailor next to you was gay. But America has moved on. And, if you look closely at this study, I think you’ll find that America’s military is, by and large, ready to move on as well.

Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service. We’ll deal with that. But I believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other.

There is a special warrior bond in combat, a bond formed not by common values, as some have claimed, but rather by the common threat of the enemy, hardship and peril.

“Numberless soldiers have died, more or less willingly,” writes J. Glenn Gray in his book, Reflections on Men in Battle, “not for country or honor or religious faith or for any other abstract good, but because they realized that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves, they would expose their companions to greater danger.”

It is those greater dangers that still motivate the heroism and comradeship our troops exemplify today.

That's why I believe the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will pass with less turbulence – even in the combat arms world – than some predict. In fact, it may be the combat arms community that proves the most effective at managing this change, disciplined as they are. It’s not only because our young ones are more tolerant; it’s because they’ve got far more important things to worry about.

The experiences of other militaries would seem to bear that out. Our study looked at 35 other militaries that chose to permit open service, including those of our staunchest allies. In no instance, was there widespread panic or mass resignations or wholesale disregard for discipline and restraint.

Some will argue we are different, of course. None of these foreign armies face the unique global demands we do. And none are charged with the leadership roles we bear. True enough. But many of them fight alongside us in Afghanistan today, and they fought with us in Iraq. Gay or straight, their troops patrolled with ours and bled with ours. They have certainly shared with ours the fear and the loneliness and the horror of combat.

I don’t recall a single instance where the fact that one of them might be openly gay ever led to poor performance on the field. My sense is that good order and discipline, far from being cast to the winds when one of these governments changed the policy, was actually reinforced and re-emphasized.

It’s clear to me that our troops expect the same. They expect that whatever change we make to the current policy will be accompanied by rigorous training and high standards of conduct. In fact, the report indicates that one of the factors distressing to those who oppose repeal are fears that new policies will not be implemented fairly, evenly and dispassionately.

Let me be clear: nothing will change about our standards of conduct. Nothing will change about the dignity and the fairness and the equality with which we treat our people. And nothing will change about the manner in which we deal with those who cannot abide by these standards. The military is a meritocracy, where success is based on what you do, not who you are. There are no special classes, no favored groups. We may wear different uniforms, but we are one.

There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas. There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital.

In fact, leadership matters most. The large majority of troops who believe they have served in a unit with gays and lesbians rate that unit’s performance high across virtually all dimensions, but highest in those units that are well-led. Indeed, the practical differences between units in which there were troops believed to be gay or lesbian and those in which no one was believed to be so, completely disappeared in effectively-led commands.

My belief is, if and when the law changes, our people will lead that change in a manner consistent with the oath they took. As one Marine officer put it, “If that’s what the president orders, I can tell you by God we’re going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen.”

And frankly, that’s why I believe that in the long run, repeal of this law makes us a stronger military and improves readiness. It will make us more representative of the country we serve. It will restore to the institution the energy it must now expend in pursuing those who violate the policy. And it will better align those organizational values we claim with those we practice.

As I said back in February, this is about integrity. Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.

It is true there are no – is no Constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. But the military serves all the people of this country, no matter who they are or what they believe. And every one of those people, should they be fit and able, ought to be given the opportunity to defend it.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe now is the time to act. I worry that unpredictable actions in the court could strike down the law at any time, precluding the orderly implementation plan we believe is necessary to mitigate risk. I also have no expectation that challenges to our national security are going to diminish in the near future, such that a more convenient time will appear.

And I find the argument that war is not the time to change to be antithetical with our own experience since 2001.

War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make change harder; it facilitates it.

There is, to be sure, greater uncertainty today and our forces are indeed under stress. And I know the Chiefs are concerned about this. So am I. But I do not believe the stressors currently manifesting themselves in the lives of our troops and their families – lengthy deployments, suicides and health care – are rendered insurmountable or any graver by this single policy change. Nor do I believe that simply acknowledging what most of our troops already know to be true about some of their colleagues threatens our ability to fight and win this nation’s wars.

Quite the contrary. Today’s young leaders are more attuned to combat effectiveness than in any of the last three decades. Tempered by war, bonded through hardship, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces are the finest and most capable they have ever been. If there is a better opportunity or a better generation to effect this sort of change, I don’t know of it.

One final word. And with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, it is true that, as Chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a Service Chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.

You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don’t think for one moment that I haven’t carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor. Thank you.

Read More...

Gates want Senate to pass DADT repeal. Warns of Court action

Watching the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, it's clear John McCain wants to be the leading homophobe in the Senate. He claims he doesn't want the hearing to be political -- and reiterated his complaint that the report doesn't answer the question of whether the law should be repealed.

Secretary Gates hit back with what has become a powerful argument: The Senate should repeal the law, because if that doesn't happen, the Courts will do it. And, he cites McCain's opening statement to make his point:

The Log Cabin Republican's DADT lawsuit threw a wrench into the Obama administration's strategy on DADT. Now, it's being used for leverage.

Reminder: Live tweeting from the hearing room are @KerryEleveld, @GetEQUAL and @DavidHallDC. Also, keeping track is @IgorVolsky. Jillian Weiss at Bilerico and over at Pam's House Blend, Sue Fulton and JD Smith are liveblogging. We'll keep providing highlights -- and lowlights. Read More...