After all, it's only been a year since gay people existed

A really excellent comment from another blog, in response to the notion that "it's only been a year, so give Democrats a break" on all those gay rights promises:

After all, DADT and other anti-gay laws and the mean-spiritedness behind them are a new thing right. As a gay person, I’ve only had to deal with this crap for 2-3 years right? And me expecting Obama (or Democrats in general) to do anything about is awful f--king demanding, because Democrats have only ever held office and ran the place this one time ever.

I mean, Democrats have only been promising us shit for the past year or two, right? It’s not like we can expect them to deliver on promises this quickly when they’ve only been making them to us for a couple years. And really, gay people have only been voting en masse for Democrats for a year or two. And they’ve only been coming to HRC dinners promising us everything in return for multiple millions of our dollars since, I think, 2008.

Read the rest of this post...

Harper's Index is now online and searchable

And here's what they've written about gay stuff over the years. Read the rest of this post...

SLDN thinks White House hasn't made up its mind yet on whether to push for repeal of DADT

And that answers that.

Also, not surprisingly, the former homosexual known as Barney Frank rides to the rescue to provide more disinformation. Sigh. Our favorite quote from the New Barney:

“I do not think it matters what the Pentagon says,” said Frank. “We will get the votes without it I think.”

Yeah, it never matters on the Hill, especially to Democrats, what the Pentagon says on military matters, except always.

And, by the way, the fact that DADT is not in a committee bill, if in fact it doesn't make it there, is evidence that it didn't have enough support to be in the bill in the first place. And that's bad. So it absolutely says something if the language isn't there. And Barney knows that. Which means he thinks we may not have the votes, or the support of the White House, to get the language in the committee bill, and he's trying to pre-emptively soften the blow.

And finally, we learn that the "new" effort to push DADT in the Congress, reported on earlier today, is in fact the same old effort being run by one lone congressman, Patrick Murphy. That is not evidence that the administration is pushing anew for DADT repeal. It's evidence that Patrick Murphy, God bless his soul, is still doing the Lord's work on his own. Read the rest of this post...

Sen. Wyden: Revoke Uganda's duty-free status if anti-gay bill passes

Last week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he'd check on whether the United States would consider suspending aid to Uganda if the "kill gays" bill passed. (You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but, no. Nothing LGBT-related ever is.)

Maybe Gibbs should check in with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). Today, Wyden, who is the new chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee on the Senate Finance Committee, asked the Obama foreign relations team (U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) to let Uganda know that the country will lose its duty-free status if the homophobic law passes. From Wyden's letter:

I write today out of grave concern about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill being considered by Ugandan Parliament. The proposed legislation would incarcerate or sentence to death lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans for engaging in private sexual acts, as well as those citizens who provide emotional, financial, or medical assistance for LGBT Ugandans. There are few words that could adequately express the barbarity of the Ugandan proposal. Secretary Clinton, you made it clear in your December 14th, 2009, speech at Georgetown University on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century, that “we think it’s important for the United States to stand against” violence and discrimination against LGBT persons. You identified the persecution of LGBT persons around the world as “a new frontier in the minds of many people about how we protect the LGBT community.” Before us is a concrete opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to ending violence and discrimination against LGBT persons worldwide. (emphasis added)

As you know, Uganda is a beneficiary of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was signed in to law in 2000. AGOA provides duty-free treatment to imports originating from beneficiary African countries. Beneficiaries of AGOA must meet certain eligibility criteria, one of which is to not engage in “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” and the jurisprudence in the area of international human rights supports respect of sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights. I strongly urge you to communicate immediately to the Ugandan government, and President Yoweri Museveni directly, that Uganda’s beneficiary status under AGOA will be revoked should the proposed legislation be enacted. (my emphasis again) President Museveni was an early and active proponent of AGOA and knows first-hand the significance of the legislation and the seriousness that Congress employed in shaping it. The significance of Uganda losing its AGOA beneficiary status will not be lost on President Museveni and other leaders in sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, my understanding is that Uganda benefits from a regime similar to AGOA that is implemented by the European Union (EU): the Everything But Arms (EBA) agreement. I ask that the EU be consulted to determine whether Uganda also risks its EBA benefits should it enact the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

I don't expect the Ugandan government to all of the sudden become accepting. But, the President and his fellow leaders have to understand that there will be consequences if the bill passes.

Maybe next time Gibbs gets a question about Uganda, he can at least mention the AGOA and Uganda's responsibilities under that agreement. Read the rest of this post...

Mrs. Robinson's chocolate balls

UPDATE: Well, my Irish blogger friend just wrote again to inform me that the story gets a lot better. It seems Mrs. Robinson is a conservative British MP herself, and once famously compared homosexuality to "child abuse." Oops. But it gets better than that. She didn't just sleep with a 19 year old young man. She was taking care of him after his father died, that's when she slept with him. And guess what? She was having an affair with his dad too!

Oh. My. God.

You may recall I wrote the other day about the wife of a conservative leader in Northern Ireland, Iris Robinson. It seems that Mrs. Robinson, whose husband is a big social conservative, and very anti-gay, was caught recently having an affair with a 19 year old young man. Well. It gets better. Dublin blogger Maman Poulet has uncovered Mrs. Robinson's recipe for "chocolate balls." And I just Googled it, it's for real.

What's possibly worse is the news story from 2008 talking about Mrs. Robinson's chocolate balls. And I quote:

Food lovers across Northern Ireland are being given the chance to nibble on Iris Robinson's chocolate balls...

Well, that was unfortunate.

And with that introduction, I bring you:

Read the rest of this post...

Rachel Maddow is more man than Tucker Carlson will ever be

Conservative Republican Tucker Carlson thought it would be funny to launch his new Web venture (which we won't link to) with a gay joke. Specifically, he suggested that Rachel Maddow is a man because she's a lesbian.

Fag jokes kind of lost their punch when your own hero, Tucker, Dick Cheney ended up having a lesbian daughter. Of course, we think Tucker's problem is that he's always come off as a little boy on TV. Not to mention, Tucker's idea of broadcast excellence is wearing a bow tie. So when a woman with a brain and backbone goes on TV and shows Tucker how it's really done, his penis envy starts to show. And it's a very little one, apparently. Read the rest of this post...

Finally, some movement on DADT - sort of

UPDATE: Or not.

Following an open challenge to the President by the lead group taking on the military's anti-gay ban, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, we're finally hearing some details today of progress, albeit it small, regarding the White House's promised repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

We reported earlier today that SLDN was calling on the President to lead, and to put the DADT repeal in this year's budget submitted to Congress in early February. While we still have no news about whether the White House plans to include DADT repeal in its budget, there does appear to be some movement. From Sam Stein at Huff Post:

Congressional negotiators and White House officials are moving forward with plans to add the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell to the upcoming defense authorization bill, Democratic sources tell the Huffington Post.

In Congress, members are being whipped to ensure that the votes will be there for passage, should the legislation be placed in the bill. At this juncture, aides say, the prospects look good. Meanwhile, a source close to the White House says the president has instructed the Defense Department that he believes the repeal of DADT should be placed in the authorization bill.

However, disagreements could emerge when it comes to crafting the actual legislative language, over which Defense Secretary Robert Gates will wield his influence. And at this juncture, few of the offices working on the issue said they were willing to take passage as a fait accompli.

A few points:

1. There are no administration sources in this story. Only an anonymous source "close to the White House." That's not Sam Stein's fault. The White House hasn't exactly been forthcoming about its open support for keeping its major campaign promises to the gay community (repeal of DADT and DOMA, and passage of ENDA). The anonymous source close to the White House could simply be a press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign. And while we like our friends who are press secretaries at HRC, they're not the same as a senior administration official, when it comes to what the administration is truly planning to do. And, as the White House has told us time and again, do not trust anonymous sources telling you what the administration is really up to. We need to hear from a White House or Pentagon official, by name, publicly, that they are proceeding with the repeal of DADT this year.

2. When the Commander in Chief talks to his subordinates at the Pentagon, he should be directing them what to do, not telling them "what he believes." Again, if we had administration sources, on the record, by name, we'd know if the President told the Pentagon what to do, or whether he's simply being subordinate to his own subordinates.

3. Other than the timing of the repeal - is it immediate, is it gradual? - it's not terribly clear what "details" one needs to work out of a full repeal of legislation, which is what the President has promised repeatedly. Both Joe and I read this paragraph and thought it sounded as if it leaves wiggle room for a "half a loaf" solution - e.g., only repeal part of the ban for some troops, or perhaps segregate gay troops, which was an option floated by an administration official several months ago. All of those "separate but equal" options would be the equivalent of designating gay and lesbian troops "3/5ths a soldier."

4. While it's not "required" that the President include DADT repeal in his budget in order for the repeal to finally come to pass, it sure helps. And it's a clear sign of where the White House stands on this issue. If the White House comes out publicly and puts DADT repeal in its budget submitted to Congress at the beginning of February, as SLDN has requested, it's a clear statement of purpose was to what the President wants. Currently, it's not that clear what the White House wants on anything, gay or otherwise. And leaving DADT repeal out of the budget would only be one more sign that the White House isn't sure what it wants.

5. There's a reason that SLDN launched a campaign against the President and Congress this morning, and it's not that they're out of the loop, and simply don't know the wizard's secret plan. They're not out of the loop. They're our lead group on this issue. And they have been for 17 years. If SLDN isn't aware of the White House's grand plan for proceeding on its promise to repeal DADT, then that means the grand plan doesn't exist. (I shudder to think that the White House actually has a plan, and is refusing to even bring in the lead gay group on the issue.)

6. And that leads me to my final point, which I've made many times before. It's all well and good "if" the White House is serious about trying to repeal DADT in three months. But rather than being silent about it, and not telling SLDN what's it doing, not working with the grassroots, the Netroots, the gay civil rights organizations beyond SLDN, and our straight allies - rather than all of that, the White House and Congress should have already come up with a grassroots, lobbying, and media strategy to support the DADT repeal effort. And that strategy should already be being implemented.

Let me say, in response to the oft-used White House talking point that all of of us complaining about the administration not having a strategy, that we are simply bloggers in our pajamas who have no idea what it takes to get legislation passed in Washington. I can't speak for everyone, but I've written and passed legislation in the Congress. I've negotiated deals in conference committees. I've worked in the non-profit sector and helped get $5bn amendments, and tens of billions of dollars worth of new progressive federal programs, passed by the Congress and enacted into law.
And I got my start on gay civil rights working inside Senator Kennedy's office in 1993 on the effort to lift the ban, on ENDA, on AIDS funding, and much more. I've seen how legislative lions get gay legislation passed. And this is not it.

I fear the strategy doesn't exist. Or if it does exist, it's buried in the bowels of the White House, which is just as good as not existing. You don't get legislation passed in this town by acting like a hermit, keeping quiet and waiting till the last minute to spring forth and save the day like some kind of cartoon hero. That works on the funny pages, it's less funny in real life when you're dealing with our civil rights. This is what the White House did on health care reform, they refused to engage publicly on the specifics, and refused to seriously lobby Congress and sell the public. We cannot make the same mistakes again on the repeal of DADT. We need to keep building public support, lobbying Congress, and working the media. All of that is happening in a vacuum right now, without direction, because the White House isn't even letting anyone know if and when the issue will come up, let alone what the united strategy is to get this thing passed.

And finally, to the degree the White House is afraid of having it be 1993 all over again, they'd best remember the most important lesson of Bill Clinton's fateful experience with DADT in that first month of his administration. Don't make promises that you're not prepared to push and defend. Bill Clinton made a wonderful promise to lift the ban, and once he became president, and the ban became the first issue on his plate, he didn't know what to do, and his leaderlessness on the issue turned it into a huge fiasco. He was taken advantage of, emasculated in fact, by his own Pentagon, and by opposition in Congress. And he didn't fight back against either. Sound familiar?

It's great to hear from third party sources that maybe something will happen in a few months. But the White House had better have a chat with someone who understands how legislation is actually passed in this town, and come up with and implement a full-blown strategy soon, because let me tell you, if they botch DADT, if we lose on the repeal effort, or just as bad, get handed some bigoted "separate but equal" half a loaf, it's not going to be 1993 all over again. It's going to be 1994. Read the rest of this post...

Rachel on the lack of 'anti-gay pride' from Prop. 8 opponents

Rachel notes how the prospect of televising the Prop. 8 trial "scared the bejesus" out of the opponents of gay marriage. They've got no pride -- no "anti-gay" pride:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read the rest of this post...

Prop 8 defense doesn't like discoveries

Yea, I would probably withdraw from the case, as well, if I had to defend some of the things Hak-Shing William Tam wrote about gays. Tam has now withdrawn as one of the defenders of the Prop. 8 case. Box Turtle Bulletin has the goods on this piece of work.

A second reason that I want to withdraw as a Defendant-Intervenor is that I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs. I do not like people questioning me regarding fourteen year old articles I wrote in the Chinese language to my constituents. I don’t like people focusing on a few articles I posted on my website regarding homosexuality and disregarding the 50 or 60 other articles I posted regarding family values subjects. I do not like the exposure of my history to people who are antagonistic to me.

An AP article transcribes a letter he wrote which should help prove he is unqualified, due to overt anti-gay bias, to argue the case in court.

In the letter, Tam outlined what he described as the disastrous consequences for allowing gays to marry in California.

“One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” he wrote. “Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals.”

The contents could come up in the trial because one of the issues is whether the measure’s backers were motivated by anti-gay bias.

It is rich how Tam can't even be honest about the real reasons he wants to withdraw. Does he not believe in the Christian principal of honesty? Could it be another example of "lying for the Lord" again? Tam gives lots of other sketchy laughable reasons why he wants to withdraw from the case in his pleading to withdraw. The most hysterically funny example of the supposed terrorism poor Tam has had to face was this gem:

"6. During the Proposition 8 campaign period a young woman tried to remove the Proposition 8 yard sign in my front yard. When I opened my door she ran. It is my belief she knew who I was and deliberately targeted me. She knows where I live."

"She knows where I live." ??!! Oh, for God's sake he can't be serious! We are supposed to feel sorry for Mr. Tam and the incredible violence and horror he has had to face from the woman who ran away? Puh-lease. Read the rest of this post...

Gay marriage bans are bad for straight marriages: Divorce rate higher in states with bans

Nate Silver ran the numbers on divorces and states that have gay marriage bans. Those bans aren't good for hetero marriages:

Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.

Check out his post with the chart of the states. It's telling. My non-scientific conclusion is that same-sex marriage actually strengthens the institution of marriage.

So, states that want to protect marriage should end their bans on same-sex marriage. But, that won't happen. We've already seen one theocratic Republican, Sally Kern from Oklahoma, introduce legislation to make some divorces illegal. Read the rest of this post...

On Perry v. Schwarzenegger: A personal take

When my wife Lynne and I were deciding whether to get married here in California, Prop 8 loomed in our consciousness. Lynne thought Prop 8 would fail and wanted to hold off on our wedding until spring when we could properly plan it. I was not so confident, and wanted to make sure we married before the election. I thought that if Prop 8 did pass, there was a very slim chance that our marriage might be grandfathered in.

So I persuaded Lynne to do a small ceremony with a handful of people to make it official, and then a larger one with friends and family in the spring. I’m not sure if she agreed with my prudence, was just humoring me, or liked the idea of having two weddings. But that is what we did. We married in September ’08 on a backpacking trip in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Then we had another, much larger wedding in March ’09 in Topanga Canyon near Malibu.

The Prop 8 outcome was devastating, of course. And then there was the wait to find out what would happen with the couples like us who had already married. The conventional wisdom was that we would be grandfathered in, while Prop 8 would be upheld and there would be no further same-sex marriages. However, the conventional wisdom made no sense to me because I could not imagine the California Supreme Court arriving at such an odd outcome. As an attorney, I could see the court coming to the wrong conclusion, but not such an internally inconsistent one. But an internally inconsistent outcome is what we got.

It is because of this outcome that counsel for plaintiffs, Ted Olson and David Boies, have a chance in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The current situation in California is unique. The Supreme Court reiterated post-Prop 8 in Strauss v. Horton that same-sex couples are entitled to enjoy all the rights the state can confer that opposite-sex couples enjoy, except for the right to call their unions marriages, and except for the exception to the exception, that same-sex couples who were married during the window would still be permitted to be married. To describe the situation is to highlight the absurdity of it.

The strength of Perry lies in this irrationality. Allowing California same-sex couples to obtain all the rights of marriage through domestic partnerships, without allowing them the right to actually marry, shows that there is no legitimate reason for denying same-sex couples that right. The denial has no other purpose than to demean same-sex relationships, or, to use the legal term, to show animus. In the 1996 case Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that animus alone is no reason to deny any group, including gays and lesbians, the equal protection of the laws. Olson and Boies seek to build on that ruling.

The uniqueness of California’s situation also means that a positive ruling could be limited to California. Courts often like to keep their rulings narrow, and they could do so here. In Perry, the court need not decide that same-sex couples throughout the country have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. It need not even decide whether civil unions and robust domestic partnerships are impermissible separate-but-equal constructions. The court could simply decide that a regime like California’s -- where some same-sex couples can be married, but others, through a fluke of timing, cannot --is so irrational that it cannot stand. And according to that reasoning, the court could strike down prop 8 in California as a violation of equal protection, and leave the status quo throughout the rest of the country. Read the rest of this post...

SLDN makes it clear: It's time for Obama to lead on DADT

Whether Don't Ask, Don't Tell gets repealed this year depends on what Barack Obama does over the next few weeks. Yes, on this one, the ball is in Obama's court. He makes the call.

Servicemember Legal Defense Network took the gloves off this week. The organization is sending a powerful message to the President, asking him to "Lead the Way":

Last October, President Obama declared, "I will end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" The year before on the campaign trail he repeatedly said "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a bad law and should go. Now he needs to match his words with action.

In a few short weeks, the president will be submitting his administration's defense budget to Congress. This is where "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" originally became law and, 17 years later, it is the logical place to end the ban. By proposing to repeal the law in his defense bill, President Obama will make it clear to Congress and to the American people that we can eliminate this wrong in 2010. Without his leadership, however, it will be tough to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" this year.

In an open letter to Obama, appearing as an ad in Roll Call today, SLDN's Executive Director, Aubrey Sarvis, states:

If you urge Congress and the American people to join you, we can win this battle. But if you do not include repeal in your defense budget, it will be tough to win repeal this year. You have yet to say to Congress, Let’s finally end this embarrassing and archaic law and here’s how we do it.

The time is now. Not next year or the second term. To delay another year is to stand aside and okay the daily firing of service members merely because they are gay. Patriotic gays and lesbians are fighting and dying for our country in two wars, just like their straight comrades-in-arms.

It looks like SLDN has had enough of the speeches and promises. Unlike many DC-based organizations, SLDN is focused on its critically important organizational mission. Now, that might mean no more White House invitations, but what's more important: Finally ending DADT; or getting invited to another cocktail party? No doubt, this campaign is going to irritate people at the White House. Jim Messina, the Deputy Chief of Staff who oversees gay issues, will probably blow a gasket and start screaming at someone. The "No Drama" Obama thing doesn't apply when top staffers at the White House yell at progressive groups and others who expect Obama to keep his promises. Conservatives and Blue Dogs never get that kind of treatment from the White House, only the President's friends and allies who helped elect him in the first place.

Of course, it would be a big mistake for someone in the White House brain trust to cut off its relationship with SLDN, "the" group that represents gay military personnel. SLDN was formed from the Campaign for Military Service, the group that was formed to fight the ban when Don't Ask Don't Tell was first being formulated in early 1993. SLDN has been in the thick of it from the beginning. I'd expect the other gay groups to stand with SLDN on this one. Because SLDN is right. But more importantly, the community will most certainly stand with our lead group that has been fighting the ban for all these 17 years. The White House takes on SLDN at its own peril.

This is all up to the President, and whether he chooses to keep his promise. Kerry Eleveld makes a similar point in her weekly column, explaining the powerful role the President play in all of this:

So what would it take for the Pentagon to recommend repeal? Basically, a nod from the White House. Based on several conversations I’ve had, the leaders at the Pentagon — meaning Defense secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen — are prepared to implement the policy change if the commander in chief asks them to.

In the absence of serious resistance from leadership at the Pentagon, President Barack Obama has the best opportunity in 17 years to end a discriminatory policy that haunts the cohesion of gay and lesbian soldiers and their colleagues, mocks the military’s honor code, and hamstrings our national security efforts.

We'll know in a couple weeks, the first week in February, if President Obama is going to include the repeal of DADT in his budget. He promised he would. The ball really is in Obama's court. Read the rest of this post...