BuggBlog

What did that poor BMW ever do to you?

2009-07-18T13:17:59-04:00

Really, does any car deserve this?

I mean, it's not like the Z4 is the prettiest car ever made in the first place, but strapping a park bench to its ass ain't helping matters any.

Balls to That: Still Searching for Gay Tennis Pros

2009-07-17T13:56:29-04:00

With Wimbledon over and the U.S. hard court summer season getting underway, I have a post up at Bilerico-D.C. lamenting the continued lack of any out gay tennis pros on the men’s tour. This is, of course, the opposite of the women’s tour where, while not exactly an Olivia cruise ship, plenty of women are out -- and doing just dandy. As a plug, I’ll have an interview in next week’s Metro Weekly with Australian pro Rennae Stubbs, a prime example of a very successful pro player (6 Grand Slam doubles titles) who is simply matter-of-fact about her orientation.

Some men could learn some lessons from the women, here.

Anyhoo, I mention at Bilerico the habit a lot of us gay amateur players get into trying to guess which male players are gay and which aren’t. There’s rarely anything said directly about any player, though clues abound. For example, I recently caught a snippet of Murphy Jensen’s Tennis Channel show, Murphy’s Guide, where Jensen pretends to sneak into a party for Spanish player Tommy Robredo, only to be “thrown out” by the host...Reichen Lehmkuhl.

To be fair, hanging out in Reichen’s Los Angeles home is hardly definitive proof that one is a homosexual -- although it is fairly convincing proof that one is a bit of a douchebag.

Of course, Robredo is a Spaniard, and all the Spanish players -- Juan Carlos Ferrero, Fernando Verdasco, Feliciano Lopez -- with their manicured, stylish ways are sexually confusing to my American eyes and ears (and in the case of Verdasco I’m pretty sure I’m engaging in totally wishful thinking, but that’s not going to stop me). Anyway, male fashion instincts are no proof of anything: Roger Federer is both a clothes whore and Anna Wintour’s favorite pet, yet he has never set off even a ping on my gaydar, even when he’s carrying a gold lame gym bag.

And just in case you’re wondering why I’d be so enamored of Verdasco, well there’s this. Self-evident, I’d say.

Bugg unplugged

2009-07-16T17:10:07-04:00

I got an e-mail last night from a friend asking why I had “gone dark” on Twitter. Always nice that someone notices! The short answer is that I’ve been busy. The long answer is about the same, that I’ve been busy...with work.

Twitter, for me, is not conducive to intensive periods of thought and writing. You know, work. It’s less a problem with Twitter and other intrusive social media and more of a design flaw with me. When I have things I need to do, Twitter becomes like a fat, hairy piece of yarn to a kitten -- generally pointless but infinitely interesting.

The obvious question is: What work? Which is a fair question, given that it’s not like I’d been living a work-free existence before my recent electronic withdrawal. But, in addition to the magazine and other projects, I really needed to hunker down and finish some things I’ve been toying with for a few months. The good news is it worked -- and I’ll have more news on one project in particular in the next week or so. Hint: It involves something that’s made from trees and is sometimes kept in a library. If any whippersnappers even remember what a library is these days.

Otherwise, I’m officially re-plugged, so bring on the yarn.

Pro-tennis players: Guilty until proven innocent

2009-07-06T15:35:48-04:00

Drugs make people think funny. Not doing drugs -- although that can have a pretty funny effect on one’s thoughts -- but just the idea of other people doing drugs that adds a certain level of warpiness to people’s thought processes. Case in point: Bill Gifford arguing at Slate that professional tennis’s drug testing program is a failure because it hasn’t found bushels of steroid-pumped athletes as professional baseball, swimming and cycling has:

While the rest of the sporting world morphs into something resembling pro wrestling, tennis upholds the gentlemanly image of a game untouched by the steroids, blood-boosters, stimulants, and other doping practices that have become almost universal in athletics. How has tennis maintained its pristine reputation? Because the sport's anti-doping program is a joke.

Or, maybe, because tennis players aren’t as likely to use steroids because they fear getting caught? Gifford dismisses the tennis anti-doping program as ineffective because it tests only “in competition.” That might be a valid concern if you’re looking at a seasonal sport like football or baseball that have significant off-seasons. But tennis pros, especially those outside of the top echelon who grind their way to a living playing tournaments week-in, week-out, have a minimal “off season”: basically December.

Gifford also dismisses doping cases in tennis as few and far between, yet manages to completely miss some of the more recent suspensions in past years, including Guillermo Coria, Guillermo Canas and 2005 French Open finalist Mariano Puerta, all of whom led to many questions about what the heck was going on in South American tennis.

Gifford’s entire argument pretty much comes down to the idea that since tennis isn’t bursting at the seams with dopers like baseball is, then the sport must be horribly corrupt -- that the absence of malfeasance is proof of malfeasance. Absent some proof -- even, say, a once scrawny player suddenly bulging with Bonds-like muscle mass -- the whole column is another extension of the drug war logic that the appearance of innocence is merely the proof of guilt.

It really takes talent...

2009-07-02T17:12:51-04:00

...to write something so utterly banal and yet in such breathtakingly bad taste as "Metro hell lingers on the red line today — sheesh!". Take it away, Joey D.:

My heart goes out to anyone forced to use Metro on a daily basis — sure, it beats fighting that daily clusterfuck we call the Beltway, but the subway has become its own clusterfuck this week, especially on the dreaded red line.

I haven't been following the situation closely, but it's no doubt hangover from last week's deadly crash (on the red line). System managers may have legitimate reasons for the clogs (they've slowed speeds around the accident area and on the entire red line), but riding has become a royal aggravation.

ZOMG! That icky accident is like totally screwing with my life! U can't get anwherez in this town now!

Good god, does anyone have internal filters anymore?

Say "uncle!"

2009-06-27T09:35:06-04:00

Posting has been and will continue to be light -- Cavin and I are doing the uncle thing as our 9-year-old nephew visits for a few days. So for now my life will center around such elementary school joys as macaroni and cheese, Mario Party 8, Pixar flicks and maybe a little mini-golf for good measure.

I can excuse you for wondering how that differs from my regular life. One thing I can see: I'll be even more exhausted than usual.

"That boy's kissing another boy."

2009-06-25T00:35:25-04:00

Given that gay pornography companies assume that because I'm the publisher/editor of a gay magazine I want to receive boatloads of hardcore porn via e-mail, I'm generally pretty careful about dealing with my e-mail when my nieces and nephews are in the house. Luckily, I can generally show them the magazine without any real worries, since it's not like we run sex worker ads featuring erect penises pressing through wet underwear like, well, some other publications around town. Which is good, because I like being able to show my family and in-laws what I do for a living.

Earlier tonight, when some of my in-laws dropped by unexpectedly, I was actually checking my e-mail while my niece, Vivienne, was in my office with me, looking at some pictures of a much younger me. I popped up this week's Metro Weekly cover:

She paused for a moment, then said, "That boy's kissing another boy."

"Yes," I said. "He is."

"Hmm," she said. "Okay." Then she went back to looking at my old pictures, processing reality as the young do. It wasn't a moment I felt compelled to turn into a teaching/learning experience -- most of the kids know me as Uncle Sean and, given that as a white guy I'm obviously someone who's been brought into the family from the outside, once they start getting a little older they start putting together two and two (or, I suppose in Vietnamese, hai va hai).

I'm going to be watching our distribution pretty closely this week. Over the years, we've had the odd occasion of box vandalism or issues disappearing in bulk from certain boxes, etc., but it hasn't been a huge problem. But oddly enough, I realized as we were considering this week's cover, really putting two men kissing front and center in a hugely in-your-face way isn't something we've done since, perhaps, our earliest years when our distribution was, shall we say, more narrowly focused.

Interestingly enough, earlier this week I saw a piece from Scientific American on a new study that showed even "gay-friendly" people often react with disgust at the sight of two men kissing -- even when they say there's nothing wrong with the idea of two men kissing. So, the cover is definitely provocative, though we didn't originally intend it that way, even though we quickly realized after we chose the photo that it would be taken that way.

Fine. The world could use a little more kissing. So go out there an make it happen.

What can I say?: A question for GLAAD

2009-06-24T10:22:38-04:00

Dear GLAAD:

I noticed your press release taking Perez Hilton to task for calling someone a “fucking faggot” during a fight. Admittedly, I rolled my eyes at first, as I generally do when it comes to all things Hilton, but I quickly realized that some of my own language and actions may at times be construed as homophobic, so I figured I’d run a few of things by you to make sure I’m in the linguistic clear.

When a man cuts me off in traffic, am I allowed to say, “You cocksucker”? Or, more specifically, “You motherfucking goddamn cocksucking son of a bitch”? If not, can you offer some replacement suggestions? “Cock-knocker” doesn’t have quite the same oomph to my ear.
When I’m finely chopping garlic in my kitchen, am I “mincing,” or is that too stereotypical?
As Florida’s Republican Gov. Charlie Crist runs for the U.S. Senate, am I allowed to refer to his marriage as a “fag the dog” strategy?
Is the use of my last name to make puns on “bugger,” “buggering” and “buggery” an offensive use of anti-gay stereotypes or just a lame attempt at humor?

Thanks for your help!

Yours inoffensively,

Sean Bugg

World of Warcraft's Pride parade, pleasure cruise and pool party

2009-06-24T09:30:14-04:00

All ending up at Booty Bay, naturally. (via Kotaku)

I just don't see pulling something like this off in EVE Online.

Another of my favorite big gay WOW vids after the jump:

Ask stupid question, get a screeching answer

2009-06-23T22:00:46-04:00

Portuguese teen tennis pro Michelle Larcher De Brito, the one who screams during her matches as if she were being disemboweled while walking naked across hot coals, defiantly told a press conference today that she won't be toning down her much-derided screeching if her matches get tough. From Reuters:

"Nobody can tell me to stop grunting," she said after a first round win over her Czech opponent. "Tennis is an individual sport and I'm an individual player.
"If they have to fine me, go ahead because I'd rather get fined than lose a match because I had to stop grunting," she said.

Interestingly, she was totally quiet in her easy match today. Seems that she only screams like an unrelenting banshee when she's having trouble on the court, which tells you pretty much everything you need to about screaming (not grunting) -- it's a tactic to distract opponents and disrupt a match:

"Definitely if the matches are going to be tougher, obviously I'm going to start grunting," she said. "I'm just here for myself. I'm not here really to be quiet for anybody. I'm here to play. I'm here to win. That's it. If people don't like my grunting, they can always leave."

Yes, they can, and I hope they do. I already skip Maria Sharapova matches on TV because I can't stand the caterwauling, which was on full display on both sides of the net during her first round Wimbledon match. I've always thought Sharapova crossed the decibel line, and what I've heard of Larcher De Brito is way beyond anything Sharapova has explosively exhaled on court. Turn off the TV, go visit another court, do anything but watch one of these screech-fests. Maybe the powers that be -- not to mention the almighty sponsors and advertisers -- will catch a clue.

The To-Be-Read Pile: Blood-sucking fiends and a dude named Drood

2009-06-22T15:26:55-04:00

With my husband out of town for the weekend and my mind/body just beginning to get a little rested after the annual spring marathon of work known as Capital Pride, all I really wanted to do with my free time for the last three days was read. It didn't really matter what, as long as I was reading something and, hopefully, knocking at least one partially read novel off the teetering piles on my nightstand and dresser.

Good news: mission accomplished. I am now officially on break from fantasy novels of all stripes, having just sped my way through The Talismans of Shannara, the fourth book of the second Shannara series -- as well as the 12th Shannara book I've read in twelve months. I'm nothing if not thorough. But I'm fantasied out. I will return to the genre when George R.R. Martin gets over his writer's block for the now two-years-overdue next installment of Song of Fire and Ice, but until then I need to focus on other things.

Normally, "other things" would not include vampires because my Anne Rice phase ended at the same time I stopped being a twink. Ancient times, those. Following her reinvention (and subsequent running-into-the-ground) of the sub-genre, vampire novels have become progressively sillier twists on Harlequin romance templates that hold zilch level of interest for me. So I was rather intrigued at the prospect of a Guillermo del Toro reinvention of the vampire -- discarding the romanticized and eroticized trappings that have stifled the iconic creature in place of something more modern and, possibly, terrifying.

The resulting novel, The Strain (co-authored with Chuck Hogan), is a bit like the supernatural offspring of two of del Toro's films: Mimic and Blade II. From the first you get the creepy and overtly stylized New York City underground, from the second you get the feral and ultraviolent bloodsuckers who threaten to take over the world. Toss in some 28 Days Later zombie tweaks and you have The Strain.

You'll notice that I'm comparing the novel exclusively to existing movies. That's because The Strain at times reads like a script treatment more than a novel, particularly in the first third or so, where the forensic epidemiology sputters and clunks along until the authors finally get the story into gear. Once moving, it's a quick and gripping (if somewhat shallow) read. The unfortunate part is that the book is inherently unfulfilling, given that it's the first book in a vampire trilogy, with the sequels slotted for 2010 and 2011. Here's hoping writer's block doesn't set in and screw with the schedule.

With those two out of the way, I decided it was time to delve into Dan Simmons's Drood, a creepy literary "history" of the final years of Charles Dickens's life -- a fictional story of the famous author's descent into possible madness after a near-death experience in a train crash and a meeting with a shadowy figure named Drood who may or may not be death. Or may or may not be real at all.

Given that I'm only about 100 pages into a nearly 800-page novel, I can't offer any finality of opinion yet, but the opening is a dazzling blend of humor (the narrator is a friend and rival of Dickens, Wilkie Collins, whose contempt for Dickens flares through the narrative in ways both hilarious and familiar to those of us who've ever experienced some serious professional envy) and deeply unsettling. Plus, as you may already know from other histories and novels (e.g. Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle), pre-sewage-system London was apparently hands-down the most disgustingly filthy and noxious place on the planet, like a slaughterhouse operating in Hell's own cesspit.

I hope to finish Drood relatively quickly, although Wimbledon did just start today so who knows what my reading schedule will be. More late nights, I suppose, which is appropriate enough -- Drood begs to be read in the dimmest of light.

Obama's small first step

2009-06-18T09:14:12-04:00

I’ve already voiced my support for LGBT Democratic donors to shut off the flow of dollars to the DNC until we see some actual movement on the issues that are important to us. While I have some differing opinions over which actions should come first -- I prioritize repeal of DADT and DOMA over passage of Hate Crimes and ENDA -- I’m less concerned at this point about whether my particular legislative agenda is met than I am about whether any LGBT legislative agenda is met. Until we see some sort of proof that a Democratic legislature, elected with our moral and financial support, is willing to pass legislation that directly impacts our lives, I see no reason for us to financially support the DNC.

I encourage enthusiastic and frequent condemnation of the Obama administration’s brief in defense of DOMA and its timidity in moving forward on the repeal of DADT. The DOJ brief was egregious, whether or not you agree that the administration was bound by law to defend it -- there’s defense and then there’s defense. The refusal to take the lead on DADT, along with a refusal to give any indication that the White House may be pursuing any strategy on DADT beyond waiting for Harry Reid to do something, is equally disturbing.

Hold people responsible. Demand action. Withhold support from those who act against you. Those are all eminently reasonable positions. But, to put it bluntly, going out of our way to piss all over even minor advances in federal-level LGBT rights will not get us anywhere.

Was Obama’s signing of a memorandum extending limited benefits to federal employees something deserving of massive celebrations? Of course not. But was it something for us to dismiss out of hand as mere political stagecraft? No.

Maybe I’m just too old matter anymore, but the sight of Frank Kameny standing in the Oval Office alongside the President of the United States means a lot to me. Actually, I’m only 41, but everything that happened today would have been unimaginable to me 20 years ago as I was graduating college and moving to D.C. Despite efforts to cobble together some individual cases of federal employees receiving some of these benefits previously -- just as the fact that some gay and lesbian soldiers have served openly due to “enlightened” supervisors doesn’t negate the existence or effect of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” finding a federal employee who received some benefits doesn’t prove the broader availability or provision of those benefits for all LGBT federal workers -- this is a new step. Incomplete and imperfect, but a new step. And as much as some may wish to move beyond the fact that Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law back at midnight back in the 1990s, that awful experience remains a counterpart to yesterday when Obama declared in a live, televised ceremony that DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed.

What happened at the White House was neither insignificant nor perfect. There are many, many promises and pledges for which Barack Obama needs to be held accountable. There are many goals for our community that can only be reached when the Democratic-controlled congress stops making excuses and starts moving legislation. The memorandum Obama signed isn’t cause for us to go dancing in the streets. But if we can’t acknowledge even the small goods that we achieve, I’m not sure how we convince people to join us in moving forward in achieving the larger ones.

The Capital Pride Parade: The Metro Weekly video

2009-06-17T21:40:50-04:00

Metro Weekly's own fabulous David Uy put together the magazine's video coverage of the 2009 Capital Pride Parade -- set to the music of Martha Wash's bring-down-the-house performance at Sunday's Pride Festival. It's something special:

Berry: Extension of benefits is "a first step, not a final step"

2009-06-17T15:41:36-04:00

Office of Personnel Management director John Berry just wrapped up a conference call discussing the upcoming signing of a memorandum by President Obama that will extend a number of benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees -- though notably not including health care, retirement and survivor benefits -- and expand federal anti-discrimination rules. A few quick points from the call:

Given the controversies over the administration's brief defending DOMA, a lot of people believe this memorandum is being rushed out the door to mollify the gay community. Berry says the work has been underway for months: "This is not in response in any way to any outside pressure, it's in response to a clear strategy the president and administration have."
With health insurance off the table because of DOMA, making this a very limited change in many ways, why should the LGBT community be enthused? Says Berry, "What the president is doing here is a first step, not a final step." He called the memorandum the first part of an attempt to "get our federal house in order" and "an example of practicing before preaching."
Asked if the president will be urging congress to pass the Lieberman-Baldwin legislation that would allow for extension of health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, Berry said, "The president will be making a statement later today and I will leave that to the president to discuss."
According to Berry, the guidance to federal agencies that will be forthcoming in the next 90 days will specifically include gender identity and expression as protected against discrimination in federal employment.
Berry reiterated that the president is committed to passage of Hate Crimes and ENDA, and the repeal of DOMA and DADT. However, asked for a timeline, he said, "Anybody who works in Washington who tells you a specific timeline is kidding you," and that a timeline is determined by when you get the votes in congress. Again, though, he didn't address any specific plans by the president or the administration to begin moving forward on getting those votes -- we'll have to see what the president says at 5:45 p.m.

Federal benefits to same-sex partners will not include health insurance, will include a handful of minor benefits

2009-06-17T12:50:59-04:00

The White House just released a short "fact sheet" on what will be included when President Obama signs a memorandum later today extending some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. Access to health insurance isn't there, though "domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program." In all, some very basic things that private-sector corporate employees have enjoyed for years.

A small, small first step -- and certainly nothing that should be considered a replacement for the larger efforts that have been promised, such as DADT repeal. I'm most curious to hear what, if anything, the administration will do to encourage passage of the Lieberman-Baldwin legislation that would explicitly allow for the provision of health insurance benefits to federal employee domestic partners. Maybe we'll know by the end of the day.

Full release after the jump.

Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

In an Oval Office event later today, President Barack Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ant the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.

Over the past several months, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing laws and statutes. Both identified a number of such benefits.

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified. The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

One Obama action on gay issues, two different ways of looking at it

2009-06-17T09:48:13-04:00

I was pretty happy when I heard the news that Obama would be signing a memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. When the story began to solidify a bit more and it became clear that this action isn't anywhere near a whole pie since health care benefits -- arguably the most important part of an employee benefits package given how our national health care system "works" -- can't be included without legislation from congress, I remained happy-ish.* These things do have to start somewhere and yelling "It should have happened in 1999!" etc. is a waste of breath.

And I won't be holding any breath waiting for congress to take some action, even though a bill that would specifically allow extension of health benefits has been introduced. I'm sure Harry Reid will come up with some reason it has to be delayed while the Senate busys itself with other matters.

Anyway, in the short time since the news has broken, it looks like the gay world is already splitting into two camps on this.

Camp Chipper is happy to see movement, even small movement, on this issue because it's the kind of small step that can be leveraged into some very real, and very necessary larger steps. Chris Geidner has a nice summary of ways in which this can happen: "So, yes, we want and deserve more — but let’s use this step as the great tool that it can be to move our other priorities further forward."

Camp Downer looks at the Obama's upcoming announcement and sees a ploy to divert attention from his administration's disastrous few days on LGBT issues -- mainly the nasty DOMA defense brief -- and salvage next week's big gay Dem fundraiser, which is shedding donors left and right. They also rightly point out that, given the need for legislation for the most needed changes, this really isn't enough to warrant the LGBT community rolling over for a tummy rub. Pam Spaulding isn't having it: "No one is buying a partner benefit plan that doesn't include health insurance, for god's sake. Will he announce an effort to send Congress something to act on? Uh, keep dreaming - his DOJ just wrote up a brief that uses defenses against incest and underage marriage to claim our relationships are unworthy of equal treatment under the law. They can't unring that bell."

As is my wont, I'm torn. I really have a strong pragmatic streak and I think most of the changes we need to see have to start with single steps somewhere in the government. This is an admittedly small step, but if it's done correctly (we'll have to wait until 5:45 p.m. to see if the step gets off to a good start) then it could lead to some very real and needed changes for a lot of people. But the egregious DOMA brief and the awkward game of "you go first" between Obama and Congress on DADT repeal simply can't be excused or forgotten by one small adminstrative step. That would take, at minimum, a stop-loss order on discharges of gay and lesbian servicemembers.

The best I can offer at this point is that we remember that we can say, "Thanks. Now, what next?" Or, to borrow a phrase, trust but verify. I didn't anticipate that holding Obama accountable for his promises would be quite this difficult -- I wasn't so naive as to think it would be easy, but I didn't think it would be quite this hard. I continue to believe that financial spigots should be kept firmly in the off position, as this action is nowhere near enough to make up for the circus that is DADT and DOMA.

*Things are moving quickly, and stories about what, exactly, Obama's memorandum will do are varied: the Washington Post is still reporting the health benefits are part of the package, while Politico reflects the more prevalent view that DOMA blocks such benefits from being offered. We'll see tonight.

Bugg goes live in Arlington

2009-06-16T23:59:37-04:00

If you happen to be hanging around the Ballston area in Arlington tonight -- "tonight" meaning Wednesday night, June 17 -- stop by the meeting of the Arlington Gay and Lesbian Alliance where I'll be on a blogging panel along with Zach Rosen of The New Gay and Miriam Perez of Feministing. I will do my best to share such wisdom and insight as, "When all else fails, make a sex joke."

The meeting and panel run from 7 to 9 p.m. at the NRECA building (4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington). Drop in and ask some impertinent questions!

Advocate reports: Obama to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

2009-06-16T20:59:08-04:00

Kerry Eleveld reports that Obama will sign the memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees tomorrow at 5:45 p.m., and will make "brief remarks."

It's important to greet the good with as much enthusiasm as we condemn the bad, so while it doesn't negate the DOMA brief or lack of action on DADT repeal, this is an important step. Given the huge federal workforce in Washington with its legions of LGBT employees, I know this news will be extremely welcome here at home.

Tammy Baldwin steps up on Obama's DOMA brief

2009-06-16T18:55:39-04:00

Via GayPolitics.com, a statement from Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) on the Obama DOJ brief defending DOMA by comparing gay marriages to incest:

I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA. I also recognize that he cannot do it alone. Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law.

Just to repeat, for the benefit of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), "Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation...."

The time for excuses is over.

UPDATE: I should have included this as well: Rep. Jared Polis (D) addressed the Obama brief and called for repeal of DOMA. Via the Advocate:

"I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA," Polis said in a statement on Tuesday. "My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change."

Polis is an interesting addition to our array of gay and lesbian elected officials -- he's new enough he still has a tendency to say what he thinks, something I hope lasts through a few terms. Read our interview with him at Metro Weekly.

Reid attempts to clarify, but future of DADT repeal still unclear--UPDATED

2009-06-16T16:45:00-04:00

Think Progress has a new statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), clarifying his remarks yesterday that he had no plans to introduce a bill to repeal DADT and attempting to kick the ball back to the White House to solve "administratively."

Under fire from a lot of LGBT corners, and with donors beginning to pull out of a big fundraiser for big-money gays, Reid today said in his statement:

While we do not have a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell bill introduced in the Senate yet, a number of Senators are working on an approach to get it repealed. We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when.

Reid also said that if the House moves on its already-introduced DADT-repeal bill, the Senate would gladly take it up. So, where do we stand? The House has a bill but won't move on it, with leaders from that side and the administration saying that DADT will come after Hate Crimes and ENDA -- so no movement there. Reid can't find a sponsor for a bill that would take action supported by 70 percent of Americans. Obama continues to lay the burden on Congress to repeal the odious DADT legislation, and refuses to issue a stop-loss order to at least end discharges while we wait for someone to actually step up and exercise a little leadership and responsibility.

The more things change....

UPDATE: Kerry Eleveld at the Advocate has a more optimistic take on Reid's statement, quoting Reid as saying, "With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress. We need all the troops we can get right now." She also places that alongside comments from Barney Frank that DADT would have to wait until 2010, placing possible action within this congress.

I can understand the glass-half-full approach, but I'm sticking for the moment with my more dour, half-empty view.

First, Reid is still attempting to punt the issue back to Obama. In some ways, that's fair enough given Obama's campaign promises to press for DADT repeal. But it avoids the fact that congress can take leadership on the issue itself -- it is, after all, the body that first devised the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" legislation. Reid and the Democratic leadership of the Senate could stand to grow a spine and put some effort into this. I'll believe that "a number of senators" are working on repeal when I see evidence beyond a statement from the Majority Leader's office.

Second, we shouldn't fool ourselves that 2010 is some magical year in which the Obama sunshine and unicorns that were delivered to other Democratic constituencies will suddenly be distributed to LGBT people as well. It is a long time from now till 2010 and any political misstep or shift in fortunes -- say, the reverberations through the middle east of a destabilized Iran, or a crash-and-burn debut of health care -- and if the fortunes of Obama and the Democrats go south, experience tells us that we wil be among the first dropped when it comes to covering ass for mid-term elections. Even without dire developments, I would expect some number of conservative Democrats to hamstring DADT repeal during an election year. At the risk of harping, with 70 percent support from Americans, we should be pushing for this to happen sooner rather than later -- and that includes everything from a presidential stop-loss order to legislation on both sides of the Hill.

Someone, somewhere, needs to put up or shut up on something other than Hate Crimes (a symbolic piece of legislation that won't have nearly the impact of DADT repeal, partner immigration rights, or even ENDA).