Gay teen worried he might be Christian

Lucas Faber's nightmare started when he realized he was having feelings different than his other gay friends. The more conservative and fundamentalist the church, the stronger his desire to actually enter it. No, Lucas Faber isn't just a gay person of faith. He is a gay fundamentalist evangelical or "Talibangelical."

At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He's a member of his school's swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

"I don't know what's happening to me," Faber admitted to reporters Monday. "It's like I get these weird urges sometimes, and suddenly I'm tempted to go behind my friends' backs and attend a megachurch service, or censor books in the school library in some way. Even just the thought of organizing a CD-burning turns me on."

He even experimented with Leviticus.

"Sure, I looked at the Book of Leviticus once or twice—everybody has," Faber said. "We all experiment a little bit with that stuff when we're growing up. But I was just a kid. I didn't think it meant anything."

Sure, I admit I even dabbled in Levitical Law when I was a teen but I realized, like most self respecting gays, that I was just lying to myself. This kid even has a sock drawer full of "street preacher literature." His parents both think he is going through a phase, but his Dad just can't bring himself to accept his Evangelical son. As for me, I love "The Onion." Read the rest of this post...

Pam Spaulding on the secret meeting and lack of progress on LGBT issues

Pam nails it. The full post is a must-read, but these paragraphs are priceless:

We sad little know-nothings in Cheetos-stained pajamas saw this coming, but hey -- we're just rubes, politically unsophisticated, you know. Just not smart enough to understand how it all works.

Well, thankfully our movement's movers and shakers are finally waking up to political reality -- the cocktails for a few came along with a big "talk to the hand" for everyone else. Our community (or rather, those who do have access) must be seen seen as easy to buy off and stall.

Our movement has wasted the opening months of this administration trying to denigrate voices from the outside who knew our civil rights were going to get backburnered because of 1) health care, 2) the endless military debacles, 3) all other progressive causes waiting in line that have been out in the cold for years. The only way to move ahead in the line when it comes to civil rights and a group -- LGBTs -- is to stop the glad handing and to have a plan, not fret over the gay netroots.

The bottom line is that LGBT rights are not seen by the vast majority of potential allies as worthy of moving up the action chain because of the baseless perception that we are a political liability for elected officials and not really hurting. The black tie gladhanding is not seen as any indicator that hardball politics is going to be played. These elected officials drained our ATM to get elected. They work for us. The shuffling and tap dancing time is over, people.

Read the rest of this post...

Chair of House Armed Services Committee opposes repeal of DADT. Do we have our new Sam Nunn?

Here we go again. This is why Presidential leadership matters.

Bringing back memories of Senate Armed Services Chair, Democrat Sam Nunn, who led the charge against President Clinton's effort to repeal the gay ban in 1993, today we hear from the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton (D-MO), that he too is going to oppose the repeal of DADT:

"I am personally not for changing the law," he said during a C-SPAN "Newsmakers" interview that will air Sunday.

Because the military is engaged in two major conflicts, Afghanistan and Iraq, changing the law would create "disruption" that can cause some "serious problems," Skelton said during the interview.

He said the full House Armed Services Committee won't hold a hearing on the repeal of the law. Rather, the Personnel subcommittee will hold the hearing at some point this year.

Notice a pattern? What Skelton said is remarkably similar to the language used in the Pentagon's leaked memo:

"Now is not the time," the in-house legal counsel for Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote recently in a memorandum obtained by The Associated Press. "The importance of winning the wars we are in, along with the stress on the force, our body of knowledge and the number of unknowns demand that we act with deliberation."

Skelton is tight with the Pentagon, and it appears more than a coincidence that they're using the same language to try to thwart the President's promise.

The other side has launched its strategy to prevent the repeal of the law. Unhelpful leaks from the Pentagon, the key Democrat on the authorizing committee coming out publicly against us. People seriously proposing segregation of gay troops. It really is 1993 all over again. The same players on the Hill and in the Pentagon are publicly working against our President's promise, against our civil rights. Will our President rise to the challenge?

An early sign of what's to come -- our side doesn't even yet have a strategy or plan to insure that DADT is repealed. Robert Gibbs confirmed that earlier this afternoon. Our enemies are wasting no time moving ahead with their strategy. Some day, hopefully, our side will come up with one too. Read the rest of this post...

Gibbs: No timeline for any decision on repeal of DADT

At the White House briefing today, Kerry Eleveld asked Robert Gibbs about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Via twitter,

Gibbs says talks in WH and Pentagon are still happening on #DADT but he doesn't have a timeline for any decisions.

(UPDATE @ 3:42 PM) Kerry just posted the transcript here.

This appears to confirm what the New York Times, AMERICAblog and Kerry Eleveld already reported: There currently is no strategy in place to repeal DADT.

Why is this important? By statute, the President's budget is due to Congress by the first Monday in February. That's two weeks from Monday. Yet, there's no timeline for any decisions? That means there's no strategy or plan to get this done. Remember, it was Barack Obama who said:

“Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town.”

Nothing gets done.

The best place to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is in the Defense Authorization. We need the repeal language to be part of the bill itself. That message has to come from the President. Then, if some member of Congress wants to remove the repeal language, they have to overcome a filibuster in the Senate or find a majority in the House. If the language isn't included, the burden is on our side to break the filibuster in the Senate. With those who purport to be our allies in power, we should have the easier path here. But, that requires Presidential leadership. Haven't seen that yet.

I'm waiting to hear how the apologists (lobbyists and job seekers among others) to explain to us that Congress passes legislation -- as if we don't know. But, on the repeal of DADT, the ball is in Obama's court. And, time is running out. Read the rest of this post...

Carrie Prejean had a wardrobe malfunction

Yeah, it's silly. And yeah, it's still kind of delicious. Read the rest of this post...

SecDef and Chmn of Jt Chiefs to testify on DADT repeal

That's good news if they say anything new or conclusive.

In the past, both Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen have been asked about the President's promise to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and their responses have been vague, other than to say "the President has made clear what he'd like to see happen." That's not an answer as to what DOD is actually doing to follow through on the President's promise for a full repeal. And it's not an answer as to whether the Pentagon is seriously discussing the option of segregating gay troops in the showers and in the barracks, the way African-Americans were banned from white drinking fountains and swimming pools (what is it about water with these guys?).

Of course, this time the discrimination would be different. We'd have an African-American president in charge of instituting a "separate but equal" policy for a minority class. Read the rest of this post...

The blog, both blogs, should load a lot faster now

My code guy has finished. I the difference is quite marked - I think the main content loads insanely faster than it did, on both the gay and the main site. Thoughts? PS And obviously there's still code loading very slowly at the end, but that's not really important since it doesn't affect the viewing experience - what's important is the main page loading immediately and you being able to read it, I think. And now it does :) Read the rest of this post...

On DADT repeal, 'the ball is really in the White House’s court at this juncture'

The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld has more on the secret meeting of the gay groups, which John detailed in the post below. Kerry confirms what John and I learned. At this point, there really is no plan or strategy to repeal DADT:

Participants declined to discuss specific strategy with The Advocate but said they mulled over how LGBT leaders would move forward if the White House decided to make a strong push for repeal or, alternatively, if it took a pass on the issue this year.

One source said LGBT leaders had sent “strong signals” to the White House that they want repeal to happen this year and that there would be “repercussions” if it did not. The source would not say what form those repercussions might take.

Some attendees expressed guarded optimism during the meeting because many in the room had “been guaranteed that this is a priority for the president” -- some by President Obama himself and others by some of his top advisors. But one source weighed that against the fact that health reform was also a top priority for the administration and its passage has not gone smoothly. “There's an awful lot of distance between something a president says and actually making it come to light,” said the source.

Got that? Our "leaders" have no idea what the White House is going to do. They have hope, but not much else. There really is no plan:

Sources also indicated the ball is really in the White House’s court at this juncture. “They will be the ones who tell us how they’re going to package this,” said one source.

The ball is in Obama's court. We'll know soon if he includes the repeal of DADT in his budget. That will be the indicator of whether he's planning to follow through on his promise. Anything short of including the repeal of the law -- and a full repeal -- in the budget means the White House is punting. This is one of the times when the President matters in the legislative process. If the repeal is in the Defense authorization, we can lobby for passage of that bill. If not, the repeal will have to be amended in the House and Senate. We'll have to fight a filibuster in the Senate. This will drag out the debate. And, it gives the opposition more time to push out negative information, as happened yesterday.

One thing we've learned the hard way is that if the White House isn't pushed hard, nothing happens. Waiting isn't a strategy. Hoping isn't a strategy. And, we shouldn't have to fight so hard to get Obama to keep his promise. Read the rest of this post...

Pentagon considering whether gay troops need to be segregated 'separate but equal' style; secret gay meeting confirms 'there is no plan' on DADT

Big news on the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal front, and none of it good. The NYT reported in Friday morning's paper that the Pentagon memo that leaked yesterday from the Chairman of the Joint Chief's office was not just some "legal memo," as was first reported. It was a draft proposal for the position the Joint Chiefs should take with regards to the President's promise to repeal DADT. And the proposal was: "not now."

The second big thing we learned in the NYT piece was that the Pentagon is considering whether to segregate, "separate but equal" style, gay troops, giving them separate showers and barracks, among other things. From the NYT:

Despite the uncertainty of timing, another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.

It's disturbing that the Pentagon is even talking about this, first of all because gays and lesbians are already in the Pentagon's showers and barracks. So this is a non-issue. The fact that the Pentagon doesn't realize this is simply bizarre. Second, why are we still talking about showers - what is this, 1993? And third, Barack Obama's Pentagon is actually discussing whether an African-American president should endorse the "separate but equal" segregation of a minority? Seriously?

Even more troubling, this was not the first time that President Obama's Pentagon has brought up the idea of creating "separate but equal" gay solders in the US military. The Secretary of the Army mentioned the "separate but equal" option as well a few months back:

Selling the idea to Congress, which has the final say, could depend on exactly what the administration tries to do in terms of the timing of repeal and how it is applied, McHugh said.

It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.

Well, we're aware now.

The Times article also references a secret gay meeting that took place this week to discuss the repeal of DADT. We've spoken to people who attended that meeting, and here's what we know.

The meeting took place this past Wednesday in Washington, DC. Approximately 20 people were in attendance, including representatives from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Palm Center, the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers United, and the Center for American Progress. No one from the administration attended the meeting, and the meeting was not called by the groups themselves, but rather a third party.

In contrast to past statements from gay groups and administration officials that "there is a plan" with regards to the President's gay rights promises, including DADT, the secret meeting (and the Times article) both made clear that there still is no plan at all. Both the meeting and the Times article confirm that the White House has not even decided if it will push for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, let alone what exactly it will push for for, if anything (as noted in the Times article, the Pentagon is even considering whether a "separate but equal" policy should be adopted). The hope is that the White House will come to a decision and announce what, if anything, it is going to do about moving forward on the repeal of DADT sometime in the next month or two. But the groups have no idea what the White House is going to decide, or when it will decide, and therefore cannot and will not endorse an all-out campaign to support the repeal of DADT until the White House makes up its mind.

Last May, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese told the NYT that there was in fact a plan:

The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be “unfolding exactly as we thought,” he was pleased.

“They have a vision,” Mr. Solmonese said. “They have a plan.”

We now know that this was untrue, or at best, the plan was trashed.

It was clear to everyone in the gay meeting, I'm told, that we can't win this without the President's leadership. But there is no indication of what if anything the President will do. The attendees split generally into two camps. One side wanting to wait and see what the President does, versus the other side feeling we can't afford to wait because it's not clear the President will ever lead.

As for my take on this news, we have been told repeatedly that there was a plan. I won't reveal the details of my recent private conversation with openly gay head of the Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, but suffice it to say that the NYT and the details of the private meeting make clear that what Berry told me at Christmas was a lie.

Why are our groups waiting for the White House to tell them whether the President is going to keep his campaign promise, and whether the President is going to embrace the reviled "separate but equal" segregation option, before acting? Why are our groups not sitting at the table with the White House hammering out the policy, rather than sitting back and crossing their fingers, unable to act, until the White House deigns to let us know what they plan on doing with our civil rights? Why does it feel like health care reform all over again, waiting until the last minute and then hoping everything works out, while the King Solomons at the White House discuss how to cut the baby in half?

No other than openly gay Congressman Barney Frank explained last year how important it was to have an all lobbying campaign before we even think of bringing up DADT repeal:

“I believe we should and will do ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ next year,” said Frank, a co-chairman of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Equality Caucus. “We haven’t done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation.”

Has there been lobbying? Sure. The same amount as last year when Barney said it wasn't nearly enough.

Why does it increasingly feel as if we are dealing with George Bush's White House and not a Democrat who promised to be our "fierce advocate"? Read the rest of this post...