AMERICAblog Gay

New poll: 'By a solid margin, American voters say go ahead and allow gays to openly serve in the military'

2010-02-10T10:09:00.000-05:00

From the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute comes another poll shows strong support for the repeal of DADT. The numbers are good and here's the analysis:

"By a solid margin, American voters say go ahead and allow gays to openly serve in the military," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Voters think 2-1 that keeping gays from serving is discrimination. But they are much more mixed on exactly how the transformation of the military will occur and how the Pentagon should adjust to the needs of gay soldiers, sailors and Marines."

"Perhaps surprisingly, there is little difference among age groups on allowing gays to serve openly: 57 percent of those 18 to 34 years old support open service, along with 59 percent of voters 35 to 54 years old and 54 percent of those 55 or older," said Brown.

Yesterday, Nate Silver took a look at 25 issues to see whether the American people supported President Obama's position or the Republican view. For the most part, Americans sided with Obama. Here's Nate's analysis of DADT:

Gays in the Military. Four organizations -- FOX, Gallup, Quinnipiac, and CNN -- have released polls on Don't Ask Don't Tell since Obama's inauguration. They show an average of 58 percent saying that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed and that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, and 35 percent opposed. No votes have yet occurred on DADT in either the House or the Senate, although the House's repeal legislation has just one Republican co-sponsor.

This new poll from Quinnipaic shows pretty much the same result. This one is a no-brainer. And, we're all waiting for the White House and Senate to figure that out and actually push the repeal. Remember, Obama can include the repeal language in the budget recommendations he sends to Congress. He hasn't yet, but he can.

Signorile on the Catholic Church: 'the institution is still a few centuries behind'

2010-02-10T08:54:00.006-05:00

Earlier this week, we learned the news Anne Hathaway and her family left the Catholic Church over its blatant homophobia. Her brother is gay.

Last night, Mike Signorile was on the Joy Behar Show to discuss Hathaway's move -- and the Catholic Church.

Lieutenant Dan Choi back on military drill duty

2010-02-09T20:02:00.000-05:00

NOTE FROM JOHN: This could be a fluke, or it could be part of the "kinder and gentler" bigotry we were promised by DOD and the White House. I hope the Defense Dept starts treating its gay and lesbian service members better, but that's no replacement for lifting the ban this year.

This is fantastic news.

Gay military rights advocate Lt. Dan Choi has been called back into drill duty, he told The Advocate in a phone interview Tuesday. Photographer Jeff Sheng, who recently turned his lens on active gay and lesbian service members for a book about "don't ask, don't tell," originally reported the news on Bilerico.com.

Choi was scheduled to appear at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Creating Change conference over the weekend but instead rejoined his unit. Choi said his commander called him personally, asking him to return.

Choi told The Advocate that he felt welcomed back by his fellow guardsmen in his infantry unit.

Follow us on Twitter

2010-02-09T19:01:00.000-05:00

Joe and I are on Twitter, you can follow us via our various accounts:

@AMERICAblog - the RSS feed of the main blog
@AMERICAblogGay - the RSS feed of the gay blog
@aravosis - my personal rantings, usually about politics, but not always
@joesudbay - Joe's personal rantings, ditto

So, if you want to follow the blog itself, then subscribe to the blog feeds. If you want to see what Joe and I are personally tweeting, including retweets of your favorite bloggers and others around the Netroots and beyond, follow our personal feeds, which personally I find a lot more fun. We only tweet a small amount of our own blog posts in our personal feeds, so best to subscribe to all.

Dem Senate candidate in Illinois reiterates support for DADT repeal

2010-02-09T17:30:00.001-05:00

Alexi Giannoulias, who won the Democratic nomination for Obama's old Senate seat, has been outspoken in his support for the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Giannoulias is even in favor of marriage equality. So it's nice to see a Senate candidate continue to defend progressive ideals even after he's sewn up the primary.

American Family Association quotes noted hate group to advance anti-gay agenda

2010-02-09T15:53:00.000-05:00

I'm actually rather in shock that they would do this. Yes, the American Family Association is a hateful, bigoted organization, but citing the Family Research Institute as a source, the group created by Paul Cameron - who is still listed on their Web site - is pretty ballsy.

Cameron is the anti-gay "scientist" who was kicked out of a series of scientific associations for being a certifiable nutjob. The FRI is rightly listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC says that "Cameron's 'science' echoes Nazi Germany." And they're not kidding. Of course, this isn't the first time the AFA has quoted Cameron as a source. So has the Family Research Council and the Concerned Women for America (see here).

Of course, why shouldn't the religious right continue to quote Cameron, probably the man single most responsible for gays being branded as diseased pedophiles. After all, they've been quoting him with impunity for decades, and what do our national groups do about it? Zilch. No one holds the AFA, FRC, CWA, or anyone else responsible when they continue to quote the Nazi-esque science of a hate group. You'd think this would be a good opportunity to take down those groups, by associating them with a hate group, and at the same time put an end to the use of Cameron's nutty science. But they won't. I've been complaining about this guy since 1993, to no avail. Imagine what the religious would do, what the Republicans would do, if HRC were promoting a hate group. We'd never heard the end of it.

Here's a bit of Cameron from SPLC:

He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.

Cameron even has called AIDS a "godsend," and it was for him: Though he was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for ethical violations in 1983 (he was alleged to have used unsound methods and misrepresented the work of others) — and then, after pawning himself off as a sociologist, declared "not a sociologist" by the American Sociological Association — his studies alleging that homosexuals were intentionally spreading AIDS have been frequently cited by anti-gay groups and commentators like Pat Buchanan.

Efforts to reverse marriage laws efforts fail in Iowa, New Hampshire

2010-02-09T14:15:00.004-05:00

Some good news from the states.

In Iowa, the GOPers have given up their quest to undo the state's same-sex marriage law:

Following failed attempts in both the Iowa House and Senate Tuesday morning to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Republican leadership has conceded that the issue won’t likely come up again before the November elections.

According to a recent poll, Iowans didn't think it was worth the time of their legislators to even consider the issue.

In New Hampshire's State House, the House Judiciary Committee voted down anti-marriage legislation:

A House committee has recommended that two bills attempting to reverse New Hampshire's same-sex marriage law be killed.

One bill called for the repeal of the same-sex marriage law, while the other called for a public vote on the matter.

By a margin of 2-1, members of the House Judiciary Committee voted to kill both measures.

Our opponents just never give up.

Iowa and New Hampshire will soon be hosting the first caucus and primary for the 2012 cycle. I like knowing Palin, Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee, among others, will be spending time among the married gays. I wonder how aggressively they'll trash the laws in those states.

'Lift the ban' groups criticize latest Gillibrand move on DADT

2010-02-09T11:53:00.002-05:00

And they're right. From Kerry Eleved:

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s proposal to end funding for the enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is being met with caution by pro-repeal organizations in Washington.

“It's helpful to talk about cutting funding for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ discharges, but we must be strategic about when such a move would be made and now is premature,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

“The last thing we need is for the first vote on this policy in 17 years to fail,” he said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed similar reservations about disrupting the process that’s now taking place in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“We want to make sure a vote on that would not foreclose pursuing a vote for full legislative repeal this year,” Nicholson said. “Moderate senators may not want to take a vote on the policy twice in 2010.”

Here's the problem, in my view:

1. If you push for a freeze on discharges, it's the only thing we're ever going to get on DADT for the rest of the Obama presidency.

- If gay and lesbian service members are no longer being kicked out, thanks to a freeze on discharges, then what's the point in lifting the ban now, the administration and Congress will likely argue - we might as well wait until the end of Obama's second term. I mean, no one is getting kicked out, if there's a freeze, so there's no harm in waiting, right?

- Some Democrats, especially some in the White House, are looking for a reason to wait. Joe calls it a legislative Ponzi scheme. Just keep shuffling the promises in the hopes that you get to the end of the Obama presidency (or the Democratic majority in the Congress) before anyone notices that you haven't actually done what you said you'd do.

- This November, Democrats are expected to lose seats in the House and Senate. And even if we hold our majorities, which isn't at all certain, you saw what happened after we lost one seat in Massachusetts - Democrats freaked out, and immediately starting talking about pulling back from all those "controversial" issues like gay rights (even though DADT repeal isn't controversial anywhere outside of Washington, DC - it has the support of the majority of Americans in every poll). Imagine losing 5 seats in the Senate, and more than that in the House? If we off DADT repeal this year, the Congress and the White House may never touch it again.

2. While Gillibrand's office refused to comment for Kerry's original piece, now that the piece is public, and critical, they're commenting:

Gillibrand is looking at adding an amendment to the government's overall budget, according to a spokesperson for her office, which will be coming up for consideration in about six to eight weeks.

The budget? It's not entirely clear to what legislation Gillibrand plans to offer this amendment - she keeps referring to 'the budget." The current strategy is to get the DADT repeal language in the Defense Authorization bill from its inception, so the bad guys will need 60 votes to strip it out. Does Gillibrand's idea have a better chance of success? Will her amendment be subject to a 60-vote filibuster? Is she planning on offering it to the Approps or the Defense Authorization bill, both of which would be subject to a filibuster? And why doesn't anyone know the details of something she's already proposing publicly? This could force a debate, and a vote, just as the Senate Armed Services Committee is deciding whether or not to add DADT repeal language to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. What if Gillibrand loses, and the loss convinces Democrats and the administration that voting on DADT is a loser? This effort doesn't seem very strategic and could be counterproductive.

3. While, as SLDN notes, a freeze is a fine thing, it's also the last thing on our list. We want a repeal, not a freeze. Why open with second-best? It's classic "negotiating with yourself." As we learned on health care reform, or simply buying a home or a car, you never get more than your opening offer.

Then there's this from the initial reporting:

The details of Gillibrand’s proposal aren’t entirely clear and her office did not respond to inquiries for comment, but Sarvis said he believed Gillibrand intended to try to add an amendment to an emergency supplemental bill for funding the Afghanistan war.

He believed? Why wasn't SLDN entirely clear on the details of Gillibrand's plan? Did she not brief the lead "gays in the military" organization on the details of her plan, run it by them, ask their advice, get them on board, before offering it publicly?

Joe and I have both been concerned for a while about Senator Gillibrand taking the lead on DADT in the Senate. She's the second most junior Democrat in the Senate, and, unlike other lead DADT repeal proponents, she's not even on the Armed Services committee. In the Senate, whether we like it or not, that matters. And, while she's been quite the outspoken advocate on our issues once she got to the Senate (Gillibrand wasn't a cosponsor of DADT repeal when she served in the House), and that's great, it takes more than good talk (or a burning desire to win re-election) to lead a successful legislative charge.

We're not questioning her sincerity, but are worried about her strategy and her ability to pull this off successfully. This latest announcement and the reaction it's received are worrisome. There's not a concerted campaign and we need one, not just from Gillibrand, but everyone involved. Our gay and lesbian service members, and our entire community, deserve nothing less. And so far, we seem to be pissing away the momentum we got from the SOTU, the hearings and from Colin Powell.

The Super Bowl is so gay

2010-02-09T10:00:00.001-05:00

(It's real, from NBC Sports. And h/t to @daveweigel, who clearly needs sensitivity training.)

Rep. (and former Admiral) Joe Sestak on DADT

2010-02-09T09:14:00.002-05:00

Congressman Joe Sestak, who served as a three star admiral in the U.S. Navy, was on NPR's Talk of the Nation talking about DADT. Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter for the Democratic Senate nomination in Pennsylvania. The interview is worth a listen -- very informative. Sestak also answers listener calls and emails. He's good. Very good.

Children are victims of DADT as well

2010-02-08T19:29:00.000-05:00

I'm a children's advocate. I can't stand to see a child suffer. From Bilerico:

[Author, Dana Rudolph's note: I first published this piece two years ago, when I had the honor of interviewing a lesbian-mom couple, one of whom is an active-duty military officer. Given the recent news about possible progress on a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it seemed timely to repost it, to remind us all of DADT's impact on the youngest members of our society. Names and identifying details have been changed to protect the family.]

Five-year-old William and three-year-old Ryan are the children of decorated U.S. Army officer Cheryl Parker. Like other children of service members, they have dealt with cross-country moves and months without their mother while she was deployed in Iraq. Unlike the others, however, they must forgo many benefits, conveniences and support services offered to military families, or risk revealing that they have another mother, Donna Lewis. This could lead to Parker's dismissal under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, even in LGBT-friendly Massachusetts.

In the close-knit community of an army base, there is a strong chance the young children will inadvertently out their mothers. "When I tried to put William in on-base daycare," explains Parker, "he would talk about having two moms. A lot of the daycare workers are spouses of military personnel. I don't need somebody's wife saying 'What's the deal with William Parker?'" The same applies to the other activities provided by the Army family centers, such as kiddie gym classes. "The questions start and then the lying begins, and it's just too complicated."

To acknowledge the gay community's concerns, DNC gives self permission to send emails with hyperlinks

2010-02-08T16:13:00.007-05:00

I am not kidding.

While the Snowmageddon was descending on Washington, DC, the DNC winter meeting held a vote meant to acknowledge the serious concerns the gay community and our allies have about the party's inaction, and sometimes backwards movement, on gay rights issues over the past year. So they passed a resolution meant to address the concerns, voiced here first, that the DNC's Organizing for America had asked Maine voters to help make phone calls for Jon Corzine in NJ, while not asking Mainers to do anything to help stop the now-successful marriage repeal effort in that state. A lot of us felt that it looked like the DNC was afraid of touching "the gay."

So they passed a resolution to rectify the matter. Let me quote you the salient part:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that OFA will continue to support the efforts of the Democratic Parties at the state and local level in communicating their positions on state issues by the most appropriate method, including sending individuals to state party websites whenever possible.

If you read it very closely, here is what it means:

OFA will continue to support state parties, and they'll use the "most appropriate method" to do so. Uh, okay. I would hope the DNC has always been using the most appropriate method to contact folks, but that's fine. The rest of the sentence says that those appropriate measure might include sending people the URL to their local state party web site, sometimes, but maybe not.

Why did we need a resolution to tell the DNC that they can email their members hyperlinks to state party sites? Was OFA not permitted to email hyperlinks to state party Web sites before? Not to mention, the resolution doesn't direct OFA to send those hyperlinks, it simply says they may, if they deem it appropriate.

So how does this have anything to do with our concern that the DNC refused to tell Maine voters to vote against the anti-gay ballot measure?

The full resolution is after the jump:

This resolution was considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on February 4, 2010, and the Committee moves its adoption by the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC adopted this resolution on February 6, 2010.

Submitted by: Jess Durfee, California

WHEREAS, in the 2009 election, OFA used its list to email supporters in several states; in two states -- New Jersey and Virginia -- supporters were asked to vote for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates; in select other states, emails were sent to supporters reminding them to "Vote on Tuesday;" and these emails did not include recommendations on key ballot measures on which the respective state parties had taken positions; and

WHEREAS, OFA has proven to be an incredible resource that has tapped into the vast pool of volunteers and activists that were inspired and mobilized by President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign; and

WHEREAS, since many state and local elections include voting on propositions and ballot measures, active support by OFA, where possible, will be a critical factor in securing election outcomes favored by Democrats and such OFA support on propositions, initiatives and ballot measures in 2010 and beyond will be critical to the future success of the Democratic Party in our states and territories;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that OFA will continue to support the efforts of the Democratic Parties at the state and local level in communicating their positions on state issues by the most appropriate method, including sending individuals to state party websites whenever possible.

AFA joins FRC's call to 'jail the gays'

2010-02-08T13:34:00.002-05:00

Yes, it's 2010 and we think we're making progress on LGBT equality. But, the haters still hate us. A lot.

USAToday's Religious columnist, Cathy Lynn Grossman, reports on right-wing theocrats from the Family Research Council (FRC) and American Family Association (AFA) who want to imprison gay Americans for being gay. For whatever reason, there has been an increased stream of this kind of extremist talk coming from groups that make up the base of the Republican Party:

Focus on the Family, sponsor of the Tim Tebow ad at the Super Bowl, isn't the only conservative evangelical group riling its critics right now.

Some folks are worried about President Obama munching toast at last week's National Prayer Breakfast with friends of Ugandan homophobe David Bahati. But while the prayer event held the headlines, leaders of the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, made news, too.

They wouldn't go as far as Uganda's kill-the-gays bill pushed by Bahati. They would just outlaw homosexuality, like shooting up illegal drugs, here in the USA, according to Tobin Grant's weekly roundup of the latest from Christian activist groups, for Christianity Today.

That these groups feel comfortable talking about jailing the gays at this point in times says a lot about the state of affairs in our nation.

Last week, John posted the video of Peter Spriggs from the Family Research Council calling for gay criminalization on MSNBC's Hardball.

The above-cited Tobin Grant includes this excerpt detailing AFA's warped thinking:

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association agreed with Sprigg. Citing policies and findings of the Federal Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, Fischer concluded that homosexual behavior should be criminalized because it "represents an enormous threat to public health."

"It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health. … Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct," said Fischer, AFA's director of issue analysis.

Fischer further justified his view by claiming that 1 Timothy 1:8-11 says "those 'who practice homosexuality' should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery."

Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association (AFA) are important players in Republican politics. So, we have to start asking Republicans if they agree with this proposal to jail the gays.

This could be part of some bizarre right-wing strategy to pull the debate away from progress on DADT. But, the scary thing is that they mean it. They don't want to kill us, just jail us.

This comes at a time when a leading Democratic consultant, Douglas Schoen, is actively promoting political homophobia. That's not helpful either.

Largest gay rights group in NJ to stop donating to political parties, asks members to do the same

2010-02-08T11:30:00.000-05:00

This is a warning shot fired over the head of the Democratic party. It's also remarkably similar to our Don't Ask, Don't Give campaign we launched in November.

It's no longer just a few f'g r------ complaining about the party's inaction, and backwards movement, on various promises to the Democratic base. The Democrats are losing their base, and they're very much in danger of losing gay money and gay votes in November. Things will only get worse as other state-based gay groups make similar decisions to no longer give to either political party. And the situation won't be any better come October when DADT still isn't repealed after all the President's promises to do just that.

From Garden State Equality, via Andy Towle:

Sending a bold signal that no political party should take the support of the LGBT community and its allies for granted, Garden State Equality’s Board of Directors has unanimously approved a new provision for the organization’s bylaws that immediately precludes Garden State Equality from giving financial contributions to political parties and their affiliated committees. Under the new policy, Garden State Equality will make financial contributions only to individual candidates and to non-party organizations that further equality for the LGBT community.

The bylaws provision asks Garden State Equality members, who make their own decisions as to individual political contributions, to refrain from contributing to parties and their affiliated committees.

“No political party has a record good enough on LGBT civil rights that it can rightfully claim to be entitled to our money on a party-wide basis,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “No longer will we let any political party take our money and volunteers with one hand, and slap us in the face with the other when we seek full equality.”

"Our Board of Directors felt so strongly about adopting this new policy," Goldstein said, "that it unanimously decided to include it in the organization's bylaws."

Philadalephia Inquirer: 'Now that the military's top brass has given its support,' End DADT

2010-02-08T10:22:00.001-05:00

Here in D.C., people on Capitol Hill, at the White House and in key groups have parsed the statements of President Obama, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to find the wiggle room. But, in the real world, people have heard Obama, Gates and Mullen say it's time to end the discriminatory law. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer editorializes in support of ending the ban, based, in part, on the plain language of what Gates and Mullen said:

Now that the military's top brass has given its support to repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law, the ban against gays serving openly in the armed forces should be lifted as quickly as possible.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that repealing the ban was "the right thing to do."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the committee that it was no longer a matter of if the antigay policy should be repealed, but when.

The advocacy of the military leaders, although measured, is what has been missing from the debate and should carry weight to help settle the issue finally.

See, to most people, it's now official: Military leaders are on board. Obama keeps reiterating his commitment to end the ban, as he did this weekend at the DNC Meeting:

Everything should be in place. But, it's not. Given the perception of progress from the past few weeks, that doesn't make sense.

In Iowa today, GOP will push constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage

2010-02-08T09:00:00.002-05:00

Because gay-bashing is central tenet of the GOP, Iowa legislators are trying to start the process to undo the state's marriage law:

Iowa House Republicans will attempt to bring about a vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the Iowa Independent reported.

The paper is reporting that gay rights group One Iowa believes Republicans will attempt to fish a bill that seeks to define marriage as a heterosexual union in the Iowa Constitution out of committee and put it up for a floor vote. Committee members have not acted on Democratic state Representative Michael Reasoner's proposed bill that aims to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court's April 3, 2009 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

“While legislative leadership has stood firm in support of equality, extremists are attempting to overthrow House rules and push an anti-marriage amendment to the floor!” One Iowa said in an email alert.

The procedural move to pull a bill out of committee requires a 51 vote majority. Seven Democrats would have to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans for the procedure to succeed. At least one Democrat, Reasoner, is expected to do that.

Republicans go to great lengths to burnish their anti-gay cred.

Sarah Palin's objection to DADT repeal is the timing. Gosh, so she's open to it otherwise?

2010-02-07T21:34:00.004-05:00

I've been fascinated by the GOP reaction to the prospect of repealing DADT. Other than John McCain and Beauregard Sessions, the Republicans have been awful careful to not seem anti-gay on this one. And Palin has been the most surprising, suggesting that the biggest problem she has with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is the timing:

PALIN: I don’t think so right now. I’m surprised that the President spent time on that in his State of the Union speech when he spent only about 9 percent of his time in the State of the Union on national security issues. And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the military. I think that kind of on the back burner, is sufficient for now. To put so much time, and effort, and politics into it, unnecessary.

Right, like she did the math. (Not to mention, that "throw me down the stairs my shoes" sentence: "I think that kind of on the back burner, is sufficient for now." Would it kill the Republicans to finally elect a president half a brain?) That aside, it's telling that one of the lead conservative presidential hopefuls for 2012 felt the need to not oppose DADT on principle, but rather to oppose the "timing" of it "now." Great, so is Sarah Palin willing to commit to when she thinks the Congress should repeal DADT?

More importantly, the GOP is clearly freaked about appearing anti-gay. Orrin Hatch was just as equivocal as Palin. And even Boehner got into a bit of a "not now" argument. They're afraid of seeming anti-gay. Which makes it all the more fascinating that Democrats are equally afraid of seeming pro-gay.

Ollie North thinks Chairman Mullen is soft on NAMBLA

2010-02-07T15:15:00.000-05:00

Someone needs to ask Chairman Mullen about this. I have a sneaking suspicion Ollie will be a soprano when Mullen gets done with him.

I hope the White House understands that this is what they're going to get over the next year, as they continue to delay moving forward on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Lots of talk about NAMBLA and hermaphrodites. If that's what they want before the election, then they should keep on their current course of not committing to repeal DADT immediately. You can either get it out of the way now, or drag it out and suffer death by a thousand cuts. For the smartest political people in the world, they're not acting very smart.

Should black judges recuse themselves from civil rights cases?

2010-02-07T13:04:00.004-05:00

How about female judges from cases in which women are plaintiffs? I'm just getting ready for the latest round of religious right bigotry. When they start talking about how gay judges are per se biased, then respectable journalists need to ask them if Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all cases involving questions of civil rights, and Sotomayor from all questions involving women, and Scalia from all cases involving Republicans.

Democratic consultant, Douglas E. Schoen, defines political homophobia

2010-02-07T10:42:00.002-05:00

Today, the Washington Post has a series of op-eds on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Most of them are very supportive of the repeal. It's pretty much a no-brainer at this point for most observers, but not all.

First, there's this key public opinion research from Scott Keeter at Pew:

Support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military has been stable for several years and is significantly higher in many polls than it was when President Bill Clinton raised the issue in the 1990s. When the Pew Research Center asked about this issue last March, we found 59 percent saying they favored "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military." Just 32 percent were opposed, and only 13 percent were strongly opposed. A recent poll by Fox News found a similar result among registered voters (61 percent in favor).

Underlying this trend has been a broad shift in public attitudes about homosexuality more generally, a shift driven by generational change.

So, how does D.C. consultant Douglas Schoen interpret this info? He thinks repeal of DADT will hurt the Democrats politically because it's a gay issue:

The Obama administration's decision to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" may well be the right decision morally, ethically and militarily. But it could have a dramatic and deleterious impact on Democratic fortunes in November.

Despite the fact that military leaders such as Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen and former Joint Chiefs chairman John Shalikashvili have endorsed the repeal, the American people have not fully done so. The results of referendums in California and Maine and recent votes in the New York and New Jersey legislatures demonstrate quite clearly that mass opinion has not changed as dramatically as elite opinion apparently has on the role of gays in our society.

Where to begin? Schoen seems to think the Democrats will lose Congress if DADT is repealed.

In the Doug Schoen's world, doing something because it's the right thing to do for moral, ethical and military reason isn't enough. Aren't you glad to know he advises Democratic candidates? And, Schoen has melded marriage into repeal of DADT -- the votes in the states he mentions were on MARRIAGE, not Don't Ask Don't Tell -- as if those issues are the same. Even the most hard core LGBT activists know that's not the case. Marriage polls significantly less than DADT.

Schoen epitomizes what's wrong with the D.C. consulting class. So many of the professional Democrats in DC, like Schoen, don't understand that people expect politicians to do what they said they'd do -- and that repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell has broad support. Unfortunately, there's something especially insidious about Schoen's piece, which is why I'm writing about it. There are some people in the White House and on Capitol Hill who are very happy to see the views in Schoen's column. Because this kind of thinking is pervasive among people who we think are on our side. I call it Political Homophobia.

Barack Obama ran for President stating unequivocally that he'd repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That might not matter to Schoen and some of Obama's staffers at the White House, but it matters to a lot us. We're still naive enough to think that campaign promises matter. There are very serious political consequences for not repealing DADT, but Schoen and his ilk don't get that.

The problems the Democrats are having with the electorate aren't related to not acting on LGBT issues. But, not acting on LGBT issues symbolizes the problem with the current state of the Democratic Party. There's a lack of leadership at the White House on a wide range of issues -- and there's no clear strategy or messaging coming from the brain trust over there. Now, we've got a leading Democratic consultant warning the White House and Democrats about taking action on DADT because of the potential political ramifications. In fact, the failure to repeal DADT after Obama has stated that he intends to do it will make the President look ineffective.

It's not 1993. But, clearly, political homophobia is alive and well in the Democratic Party.

If Democrats won't deliver, Don't Ask, Don't Give.

Frank Rich on Don't Ask Don't Tell

2010-02-06T23:42:00.002-05:00

Frank Rich:

But that’s not the whole explanation for the scant pushback in Washington to Mullen and his partner in change, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There is also a potent political subtext. To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. This equation was visibly eating at Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as he vamped nervously with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week, trying to duck any discernible stand on Mullen’s testimony. On only one point was he crystal clear: “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.”

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

It’s in this political context that we can see that there may have been some method to Obama’s troublesome tardiness on gay issues after all. But as we learned about this White House and the Democratic Congress in the health care debacle, they are perfectly capable of dropping the ball at any moment. Let’s hope they don’t this time. Should they actually press forward on “don’t ask” in an election year with Mullen and Gates on board — and with even McCain’s buddy, Joe Lieberman, calling for action “as soon as possible” — they could further the goal and raise the political price for those who stand in the way. Recalcitrant Congressional Republicans will have to explain why their perennial knee-jerk deference to “whatever the commanders want” extends to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal on troop surges but not to Mullen, who outranks them, on civil rights.

Potomac, MD high school students get fliers saying therapy turns gays straight

2010-02-06T21:26:00.002-05:00

First off, it's a lie. The groups that claim they can"cure" you of being gay themselves admit in their own literature that they can't cure you. I know, because I did a massive research project on those groups earlier in the decade. Even they don't claim to 'cure' you. And they claim they "cure" thousands of gay people every year, yet they always have the same handful of people as "proof." I mean, at this point, after this many years, they'd have a small town full of cured gay people, so where are they? It's really abominable that a school district would permit a group to disseminate a lie to their students.

The schools are required to distribute literature that isn't deemed hate speech from any registered nonprofit organization four times a year, the result of a 2006 lawsuit, said Dana Tofig, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Public Schools.

School officials said that while they aren't always happy with everything that goes home with students, their hands are tied by the results of the litigation.

Great, then I hope the students are getting pro-gay information every quarter. And, if Aryan Nation wanted to distribute, say, recipes to the students, in the name of Aryan Nation, proudly marked all over the literature, inviting the students to join their group and give them a call, then that would be okay too? After all, recipes aren't hate speech. Why do I have a feeling the school would find a way to stop that hate group, but not the "pray away the gay" crowd.

Anthony Woods on a smart repeal of DADT

2010-02-06T21:17:00.000-05:00

Our friend and West Pointer, Anthony Woods, is calling for a smart repeal.

During this time of war, abolishing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will strengthen our fighting force by allowing all capable Americans to serve our country honorably, regardless of their sexual orientation. To suggest the men and women of our military are incapable of handling this is an insult to their professionalism.

Those who oppose this policy—rapidly dwindling in their numbers—are growing in their desperation. Arguments at Tuesday’s hearing ranged from Senator Chambliss’ predictions that our troops will devolve into a life of booze and “body art” as order and discipline disintegrates into chaos to Senator McCain’s insistence that the policy should be kept in place because it is “well understood.” Well, senator, just because blacks understood their place was at the back of the bus or that they weren’t fit to be served at the counter, does that mean those policies should have stayed in place, too? I think not.

But, those of us who support repeal shouldn’t break out the Champagne just yet. While Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and now Colin Powell have delivered mortal wounds to this discriminatory policy, we cannot rest until we’ve accomplished the mission. If the battle for health care has taught us anything, it’s that a handful of citizens screaming in a town hall meeting can send even the best-intentioned politicians running away from smart policy.

Will we see an intelligent plan that is successfully executed or will we get thrown under the bus again? We've seen this play before and the question should be whether or not the inability to lead is deliberate. Do our leaders really want progressive change or are they just mouthing the words?

Why Obama Suddenly Took on 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

2010-02-06T17:30:00.004-05:00

A gay conservative credits the liberal gay blogosphere for moving President Obama on Don't Ask Don't Tell this year:

It certainly wasn't the Human Rights Campaign, which has been playing a game of make-nice with Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration. Its leader, Joe Solmonese, ever quick to criticize Republicans when they fall short on gay issues, has been tepid in his criticism of the president when Obama failed to keep campaign promises to the gay community. No wonder ABC News' Rick Klein, in his October list of the "10 Least Powerful People in DC," pegged "Gay-rights advocates" at No. 7, citing in particular Obama's failure to repeal DADT despite repeated promises to do so.

If the HRC's strategy had been effective, the administration would have long ago begun the process of repealing DADT.

It may instead have been an effort by a coterie of liberal bloggers and activists calling "for a temporary moratorium on DNC donations" who made the administration realize there was a price for its inaction.

The fledgling movement, which adopted the motto "Don't Ask, Don't Give" and has attracted the likes of legendary gay rights activist David Mixner, aimed at discouraging donations to the party until the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the repeal of both "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mostly left-of-center bloggers at such sites as Pam's House Blend, Queerty and AmericaBlogGay pressed their readers to boycott the Democratic Party.

Their actions generated a lot of heat in the community, culminating in a cover story in the Advocate, a monthly gay newsmagazine. And threatened with this loss of revenue from some of their most reliable (and affluent) supporters, the Obama administration surely realized it needed to act quickly on one of those issues, lest it lose a significant chunk of its financial support and alienate some of the party's most enthusiastic backers.

So, this gay conservative blogger's hat is off to his fellows on the other side of the political aisle. Unlike the heads of the establishment gay organizations, they didn't kowtow to the leaders of the political party they prefer and refused to accept their promises of action on some undefined date in the future.

A number of other gay bloggers/Netroots were just as instrumental. You can find Don't Ask Don't Give here.

Gay couple on Caprica last night (spoiler)

2010-02-06T12:06:00.000-05:00

To get back into our SyFy Friday mode, even though it's now Saturday, the new Battlestar Galactica spin-off, Caprica, has a scene with a gay couple tonight. And, it's good (you can see a preview via the link above). The religious right will flip. The nephew asks them why they never had children. It's pretty cool - Sam Adama, the mafioso, is the gay guy. Oddly, though, when his brother walks into the room, he turns to him and says, in Greek, "adelfi mou," which means, "my brother." I'm dying to know why they chose Greek. Okay, Googled that one - apparently the language of the Taurons is derived from Ancient Greek. And actually, there was a second Greek phrase thrown in to, when they're saying "cheers," they say it in Greek.