SLDN News

SLDN Highlights What Congress, Pentagon Can Do Now on Dont Ask, Dont Tell

2009-07-08T20:45:16-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2009

CONTACT: Kevin Nix
Director of Communications
(202) 431.5796

SLDN Highlights What Congress, Pentagon Can Do Now on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Proposals Serve as Interim Steps on Road to Full Repeal

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) recommended immediate steps Congress and the Pentagon can take to stop or slow investigations of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" violations. Congress, for instance, can direct the Secretary of Defense to cease investigations of homosexuality in the armed forces through 2010. Or, the Secretary of Defense can instruct all service branches that certain information about an individual's sexual orientation (i.e., information coming from a civilian, anonymous tips, and hearsay) would not trigger a DADT inquiry.

"These are ways to make the application of DADT less draconian," said Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN executive director. "And they could be done tomorrow. Action needs to be taken immediately while Congress debates full repeal legislation. It continues to be remarkable that gay and lesbian service members are fired on a daily basis based often on anonymous or uncorroborated information."

SLDN has drafted the following legislative language for lawmakers in Congress to consider:

...the Secretary of Defense...instructs...there may be no investigation of or inquiry into, or any administrative action relating to, conduct described in 10 U.S.C. § 654(b), "Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces," until the end of the 111th Congress; provided that, this shall not limit the authority of the Secretaries of the armed services with respect to conduct that would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

We have also submitted six specific recommendations to Secretary Gates, who has the legal authority to act on all immediately.

1. To be sufficient to support the initiation of an inquiry into a possible violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the source of the allegation must be another service member. Information from a civilian is not sufficient.
2. An anonymous tip is not a sufficient basis to start an inquiry into a possible violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
3. Hearsay cannot support the initiation of an inquiry; the allegation must be based on personal knowledge.
4. The alleged homosexual conduct must have occurred after the service member joined the armed forces.
5. Statements made to chaplains, doctors, psychologists and other health professionals cannot be a basis of an inquiry into a possible violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
6. The Secretary should ensure that the court's decision in Witt v. Dep't of Air Force is faithfully implemented and applied throughout the armed services. This decision requires the armed services to handle DADT cases in a way that ensures that service members' constitutional rights are not violated.

"It was reported last week that the Pentagon is exploring ways of making ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' more ‘flexible,'" said Sarvis. "Here are six ways to do this. We hope the Secretary considers all of them."

We encourage President Obama to support the underlying principle for the proposals above: to slow or stop the investigations under DADT. We also urge him to publicly support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1283).

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A journalists' guide is available here.

USA Today Editorial: After 16 Years, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Deserves to Die

2009-07-08T15:00:13-05:00

USA Today
Opinion
July 8, 2009

Our view on gays in the military: After 16 years, 'don't ask, don't tell' deserves to die
It's time to ditch prejudicial policy that hurts military readiness.

Just days after he took office in 1993, President Clinton tried to deliver on a campaign promise to overturn the ban against gays in the military. He failed abysmally.

The military brass opposed him. The public opposed him. Congressional Republicans opposed him. Even some otherwise thoughtful senators from his own party shot him down. And the nation ended up stuck with the firestorm's convoluted legacy - a compromise known as "don't ask, don't tell" that deftly combines pure prejudice with blatant hypocrisy. Recruits aren't asked about sexual orientation (don't ask) but are discharged if they engage in homosexual conduct or admit to being gay (don't tell).

Now, 16 years later, the nation has another new Democratic president who vowed during his campaign to overturn this American embarrassment. Given the political history, the issue's sensitivity and the crises President Obama has faced, it's understandable that this was not his out-of-the-gate priority.

But six months into his presidency - when the nation is at war and the military remains overstretched - the time to move toward repeal is quickly arriving. If anything, the case against discrimination is stronger today than it was when "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted.

The country's views of gay men and lesbians have changed drastically since 1993, when only 40% favored homosexuals serving openly in the military. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in May found that 69% of adults favor open service for gay men and lesbians - including 58% of self-described conservatives.

Some retired officers insist that lifting the ban on gays would undermine readiness. But if anything is hurting readiness, it's this policy. From its creation in 1993 to 2007, the armed forces discharged more than 12,000 otherwise qualified men and women under "don't ask, don't tell." They've included combat troops, code-breakers, medical and intelligence specialists, and translators fluent in critical languages such as Arabic. The military has spent millions in tax dollars to train their replacements.

No less an authority than retired Army general John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued last month in The Washington Post that research "shows conclusively" that arguments for the gay ban are bunk. And Colin Powell, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1993 opposed lifting the ban, said Sunday on CNN that "a lot has changed" and that the policy should be reviewed.

Some of the most convincing evidence comes from other nations - including Britain, Canada and Israel - that have lifted bans. Britain's new policy has proved so successful that the military now actively recruits gays and offers partner benefits.

Ultimately, it will be up to Congress to right this wrong with a new law. A House measure to do so, with 150 sponsors, needs and deserves Obama's vocal support this fall as Congress completes action on his top priorities, particularly a health care overhaul.

Beyond the pragmatic reasons to overturn the ban is this: The policy is simply wrong. It says that gay men and lesbians may serve their country - and even die for their country, as many have - only when they deny who they are. If the truth comes out, they're out, too. That is neither patriotic nor honorable.

Posted at 12:22 AM/ET, July 08, 2009 in USA TODAY editorial | Permalink

SLDN Statement on Congressman Patrick Murphy

2009-07-08T14:35:07-05:00

We are very fortunate to have Rep. Murphy as the new lead on H.R. 1283. He brings his unique expertise as an Iraq veteran, his commitment to ending discrimination, and a passion for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This change in leadership should be a catalyst to re-dedicate our efforts to get 218 cosponsors so we can pass the bill.

TIME: Gays in the Military: Does a Sailor’s Murder Signal Deeper Problems?

2009-07-07T15:32:32-05:00

Tuesday, Jul. 07, 2009
Gays in the Military: Does a Sailor's Murder Signal Deeper Problems?
By Mark Thompson / Washington

Even as Pentagon lawyers begin trying to ease the "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibition on gays serving openly in the U.S. military, the murder last week of an apparently gay sailor at California's Camp Pendleton has raised new questions over the readiness of the armed forces to accept openly homosexual personnel.

Seaman August Provost of Houston was shot and killed while standing nighttime guard at his base on June 30. His body was found at about 3 a.m. after his guard shack had been torched, apparently to destroy evidence surrounding his slaying, according to Navy officials. Provost was gay, according to his family, gay activists and his MySpace page, and had reportedly "come out" to some of his Navy colleagues. Two California Democratic members of Congress, Susan Davis and Bob Filner, have asked the military to investigate whether Provost's sexual orientation was the reason for his murder. Local gay activists have also asked for such a probe, and are planning a candlelight vigil outside Camp Pendleton's gates this Friday, several hours after memorial services for Provost are to be held in Texas. (See a history of gay rights in pictures.)

The Navy has said there is no indication that the 28-year-old sailor was the target of a hate crime, but officials also decline to specify a suspected motive. "As it stands right now, we have no indication that there is any tie to what may or may not have been his sexuality," a senior Navy officer in San Diego said Monday afternoon. This officer expressed frustration with blog and media reports saying Provost had been brutalized - in addition to being shot. "He did suffer gunshot wounds, and there was a fire in a pretty clear attempt to destroy evidence," he said. "But he was not bound, he was not gagged and he was not mutilated." At least two suspects - both sailors - have been questioned. One remains in custody and is expected to be charged.

Navy officials admit that they hope there is no link between Provost's killing and his sexual orientation, because his death comes at a delicate time for the Obama Administration on the issue of gays in the military. Following President Clinton's bumbled 1993 effort to force the military to accept openly gay personnel in its ranks, Congress - abetted by the military - passed legislation making "Don't ask, don't tell" the law. Prior to the Clinton Administration, the ban on gays serving had simply been a presidential directive that could be unilaterally reversed by the White House. (Watch a gay marriage wedding video.)

But now that it has been written into law, it will take a majority of both houses of Congress to lift the ban. The Obama Administration has asked the military for its advice on how best to do that, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that he has told Obama to make the change "in a measured way." Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week his staff is seeking ways that the law can be applied "in a more humane way." (Read "Revisiting 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'")

Indeed, Provost's murder comes almost 10 years to the day that Army Private First Class Barry Winchell was killed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, after he was suspected of being gay. Gay activists argued at the time that an antigay climate at Fort Campbell played a role in Winchell's July 6, 1999, murder; the soldier convicted of his killing was sentenced to life in prison.

The Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, a think tank that studies gender and sexual issues in the military, issued a legal memo on Monday detailing just what Gates could do to reduce the impact of "Don't ask, don't tell" on military personnel. (According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which opposes the ban, a total of 284 military personnel have been kicked from the ranks since President Obama came into office promising to end it.) Among other options, Gates could order the retention of all service members targeted under the law for a limited period of time by citing the nation's security needs. He could also mandate that any inquiry into the sexual orientation of a service member require his approval.

Similar tweaks in other nations' prohibitions on gays in the military have opened the way to their repeal. "In Britain and Israel, modifying enforcement was followed by an end to their bans," says Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center. "Given the research showing that openly gay service works, as well as the political climate and public support for repeal, I'd imagine the same might happen here."

Houston Chronicle: Sailor Questioned in Seaman’s Death

2009-07-04T02:05:33-05:00

By LINDSAY WISE
Coopyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
July 3, 2009, 8:05 p.m.

Authorities are questioning a suspect in the death of a sailor from Houston.

The body of August Provost, 29, was found at Marine Corps Camp Pendleton base in Southern California about 3:30 a.m. Tuesday.

Provost had been standing watch as a sentry at a compound on the base, said Capt. Matt Brown, a spokesperson for Navy Region Southwest in San Diego, Calif.

"Preliminarily it appears Seaman Provost suffered gunshot wounds, and it appears that someone attempted to destroy evidence by lighting a fire at Seaman Provost's assigned place of duty," Brown said.

Provost's exact cause of death was pending the completion of the autopsy report, he said.

Investigators have linked a sailor to the crime through both physical evidence and his own statement, Brown said. The sailor has been taken into custody and is cooperating with the investigation, he said.

Activists have expressed concern Provost's death may have been a hate crime related to his sexual orientation. Provost was gay.

"There is no information that suggests this is a hate crime, but we will address any possible motivation as part of the investigation as we continue to thoroughly examine the many leads and facts in this case," Brown said.

Another sailor initially questioned as a "person of interest" on Wednesday has been released, he said.

Provost, who lived in the Acres Homes neighborhood, joined the Navy in March 2008. He was assigned to a Camp Pendleton-based team of air-cushioned landing craft that carry troops and equipment from the sea on to the shore.

"Seaman Provost was an outstanding sailor looking forward to a bright future," Brown said. "He was also a son, a friend and a shipmate, and all of us share in the grief and this sense of loss. He will most surely be missed by all who loved and cared for him, and by those who served with him."

SLDN Urges Secretary of the Navy to Conduct Full and Thorough Investigation

2009-07-03T21:33:46-05:00

July 3, 2009

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-1000

Dear Secretary Mabus:

I write to you concerning the death of Seaman August Provost, who on June 30th, 2009, was found dead on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in San Diego, CA, in an apparent homicide.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related forms of intolerance. SLDN has provided legal assistance to thousands of service members impacted by this law.

Seaman Provost was one of the 65,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members who serve our country despite "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

News reports indicate that the victim may have been targeted because of his sexual orientation. As an organization that represents LGBT service members, SLDN encourages the NCIS to conduct a full and thorough investigation into all leads in order for the motivation of this incident to be determined, and a successful conclusion reached. Although there is, to our knowledge, no evidence that the death of Seaman Provost was a hate-motivated crime, nothing short of a full and thorough investigation can dispel concerns that his sexual orientation was a factor in his death. To ensure the safety of all service members, it is important to understand whether this apparent homicide was a hate crime so that similar incidents do not happen again.

I would also request that you provide us with a direct contact person at NCIS so that the SLDN legal department might coordinate with your investigators. In light of our experience with such investigations, our contacts within the military LGBT community, and the reluctance of many LGBT service members to come forward without the assurance and support that they can do so safely, it may well be that we can provide valuable assistance to the investigators as well as information that might not be normally made available to your investigators.

SLDN joins Members of Congress and other concerned citizens and organizations in calling for a full investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding Seaman Provost's death. We urge that a complete report of your findings be provided as soon as possible.

Your consideration and attention to this matter is appreciated.

Respectfully,
Aubrey Sarvis
Executive Director

Los Angeles Times: Congressman Says Gay Sailor’s Death a Possible Hate Crime (Updated)

2009-07-03T02:34:10-05:00

[Updated 7:20 p.m.: In a late afternoon press conference, Navy officials promised a thorough investigation into the murder. However, they said there was no evidence the killing was a hate crime. A sailor who is considred to be a person of interest remains in the brig. Another sailor, who was initially considered a person of interests, has been released.]

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) said today he had asked the U.S. Department of Defense and the Marine Corps to investigate whether the killing of a sailor, who was gay, at Camp Pendleton was a hate crime.

Filner, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said he wanted a complete investigation of circumstances surrounding the death of Seaman August Provost, 29, of Houston. Provost's body was found about 3:30 a.m. Tuesday in a guard shack on the western edge of the sprawling base.

Gay leaders in San Diego had asked Filner to intervene. Nicole Murray-Ramirez, chairman of the San Diego Human Relations Commission, said Provost's family said the sailor had been harassed by other personnel on the base.

Filner said initial indications are that Provost was shot and his body burned. He said his committee also will investigate the case.

Provost's partner found out about the death from a newspaper reporter, Murray-Ramirez said.

The military has said that a "person of interest" is in the brig at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego. No information has been released about a possible motive.

"We respect the military, but we want to ensure that there is full disclosure, to see if this was a hate crime," said Murray-Ramirez. "A member of our community has been killed."

Provost was assigned to a unit on the base that takes combat Marines ashore in high-speed craft.

-- Tony Perry

SLDN Statement on Camp Pendleton Homicide Investigation

2009-07-02T15:59:31-05:00

On June 30th a sailor was found dead on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in San Diego, CA. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is calling the death of 29-year old Seaman August Provost an apparent homicide and that the case is a homicide investigation. A "person of interest" is in custody.

News reports indicate the victim could have been targeted because he was gay. This may, or may not, be true. All the facts in this case are unclear or unknown. But we, as an organization that represents LGBT service members, expect NCIS to thoroughly investigate all leads and to actively pursue a full investigation no matter where the evidence leads.

SLDN encourages all service members who have knowledge helpful to the investigation to come forward - but LGBT service members should contact SLDN's legal department for a free confidential consultation prior to speaking with military authorities, to ensure the safe reporting of any information relevant to the ongoing investigation.

To speak with an attorney, contact SLDN's Legal Department by either calling (202) 328-3244 x 100 or e-mailing us at legal@sldn.org.

San Diego Union-Tribune: Camp Pendleton Sailor Found Dead on Base

2009-07-02T02:30:03-05:00

By Kristina Davis
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
Originally published 11:59 p.m. July 1, 2009, updated 8:30 a.m., July 2, 2009

CAMP PENDLETON - A person was being held in connection with the suspected homicide of a 29-year-old sailor who was found in a Camp Pendleton guard shack, Navy officials said yesterday.

The body of Seaman August Provost of Houston was discovered about 3:30 a.m. Tuesday on the western edge of the base, said Doug Sayers, a spokesman for Navy Region Southwest.

An autopsy was completed yesterday, but authorities were waiting for results of toxicology tests to determine the cause of death.

A "person of interest" was being held in the brig at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. No charges have been filed.

The death has local gay activists calling for an investigation into whether Provost was slain because of his sexual orientation. "We're definitely monitoring this, and trust and hope the military will investigate this in the professional way it should," said Nicole Murray-Ramirez, chairman of San Diego's Human Rights Commission.

Murray-Ramirez said he had asked two San Diego members of Congress, Reps. Susan Davis and Bob Filner, to make official inquiries with the military.

Provost's partner, Kaether Cordero, said Provost was openly gay but kept his private life quiet for the most part.

"People who he was friends with, I knew that they knew," Cordero said from Houston. "He didn't care that they knew. He trusted them."

Provost had recently complained to family members about a person who was harassing him, so they advised him to tell his supervisor, said his sister, Akalia Provost of Houston.

"He's the type that if someone comes at him, he walks away. He never stands and argues," she said. "He didn't deserve anything but a good life."

Provost was assigned to Assault Craft Unit 5 at Camp Pendleton. He had completed three years of college before joining the Navy in March 2008 to help finance his education, and was studying to become an architectural engineer.

SLDN Reaction to Gates Proposal

2009-07-01T22:54:30-05:00

We are encouraged that the White House and Sec. Gates are considering ways to slow investigations under ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' This indicates the Administration has begun making an effort to stop wasting military talent. What's really needed, however, is an end now to ALL DADT investigations. After the July 4th holiday, SLDN is providing Congress a proposal on how to do just this. (Lawmakers can direct the Secretary of Defense to immediately stop DADT investigations.) Congress should take this interim step to end the investigations while they -- under the President's leadership -- act on full repeal legislation that will get rid of DADT once and for all.

Military Chaplains Response to NewsHours Dont Ask, Dont Tell Story

2009-07-01T01:27:14-05:00

On the June 29th broadcast of PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Chaplain Major General Charles Baldwin (Ret) spoke out in favor of keeping the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. He said, "This is a moral issue, and one of my strong contentions is that to repeal the law would be to show great disrespect for the religious convictions of the great majority of the people in the military, because Christians, Muslims, Jews have as a basic part of their faith that this is an immoral lifestyle." Chaplain Dennis Camp (Colonel), U.S. Army (Ret), and a former Director of Personnel and Ecclesiastical Relations for the Department of The Army Chief of Chaplains Office, offers a different perspective.

"Respectfully, I could not disagree more. I've preached duty, honor and country from the pulpits of military chapels for almost three decades and ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' lies in contradiction to these values. While the repeal of DADT may be seen as a moral issue to some religious groups, it is first and foremost a constitutional rights issue. What hangs in the balance is the right to serve openly by the thousands of gays and lesbians in all services of the U.S. military who are already serving honorably and a much deserved tribute to the many who have died while defending our nation's causes. There is nothing moral about discrimination - firing people because they happen to be gay or lesbian. Eight out of 10 Americans, regardless of political and religious affiliation, believe people should be able to serve openly in the military. This law needs to get repealed now, while we're fighting two wars. We need to be recruiting and retaining all the qualified men and women we can get. Freedom of service will strengthen our military might and raise the standard of democracy and human rights, both at home and abroad."

The NewsHour: Considering the Future of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2009-06-30T13:49:01-05:00

Click here to watch last night's report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which featured SLDN's Saturday March on the White House as well as Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach.

New York Times: On Gay Issues, Obama Asked to be Judged on Vows Kept

2009-06-30T13:45:28-05:00

June 30, 2009
On Gay Issues, Obama Asks to Be Judged on Vows Kept
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON - President Obama defended his policies on gay rights on Monday, telling an audience of gay men and lesbians that he remained committed to overturning the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule and that he expected to be judged "not by promises I've made but by the promises that my administration keeps."

Mr. Obama made his remarks at a reception in the East Room of the White House to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 uprising that gave rise to the modern gay rights movement. Joined by his wife, Michelle, the president directly addressed criticism from gay and lesbian leaders that he had not been a forceful advocate for them.

"I know that many in this room don't believe progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," Mr. Obama said. "It's not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half-century ago.

"We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Many lesbians and gay men supported Mr. Obama's election, but their leaders have grown increasingly impatient and critical of him as president.

Mr. Obama campaigned on a promise of repealing two policies that are anathema to them: the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and "don't ask, don't tell," which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The president has been accused of dragging his feet on both, but especially on "don't ask, don't tell" because he could use his executive authority to order the military not to enforce the rule.

In his remarks on Monday, Mr. Obama affirmed his opposition to the policy, saying he believed that "preventing patriotic Americans from serving our country weakens our national security." But he said he thought the best course was to work with the Pentagon and lawmakers to overturn it.

"As commander in chief," Mr. Obama said, "I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term."

The explanation seemed to assuage some of his critics.

Richard Socarides advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues and has been deeply critical of Mr. Obama. Mr. Socarides, who watched the event on the White House Web site because he was not invited, said afterward that while he disagreed with the president's strategy, he respected him for "articulating why and how" he was making his decisions.

"This will buy him some time," Mr. Socarides said, "but he'll have to deliver."

For at least one person at the reception, time is of the essence.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force officer who is facing expulsion proceedings after someone informed his superiors that he is gay, attended the reception as a guest of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is challenging the policy. Colonel Fehrenbach said he introduced himself to the president after Mr. Obama spoke.

"I explained that I'm being thrown out as we speak, and that there was a sense of urgency for me," Colonel Fehrenbach said. "He looked me in the eye and he said, ‘We're going to get this done.' "

Wall Street Journal: Obama Pledges to Move on Gay-Rights Agenda

2009-06-30T13:44:57-05:00

June 30, 2009
Obama Pledges to Move on Gay-Rights Agenda
By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, under fire from the gay-rights community over slow action on its priorities, promised to deliver by the time he leaves office.

Barack Obama
The president gave no new details about how he would advance these issues, but he made passionate remarks saluting the pioneers of the gay-rights movement and expressed solidarity with those working for equal rights.

"Welcome to your White House," the president said at a reception Monday to mark the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern gay-rights movement. His remarks were greeted warmly by a cheering crowd of some 250 gay and lesbian activists and supporters.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama vowed to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits openly gay men and women from serving, and to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states and bars the federal government from granting marriage benefits to people in same-sex unions.

The Obama administration has said it will take congressional action to address both issues. But, aware of both the complex politics involved and its full agenda, the White House has done little so far to prod lawmakers along.

Many in the gay-rights community were also angered by the tone of an administration legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

Earlier this month, Mr. Obama offered a small step, promising to extend certain benefits available to same-sex partners of federal workers. But critics dismissed the move as amounting to little in practice.

The president appeared mindful of these criticisms when he stepped to the front of the East Room on Monday.

"It's not for me to tell you to be patient," he said, comparing the gay activists' struggle to that of African-Americans in the civil rights movement. "I expect and hope to be judged not by words...but by the promises that my administration keeps."

He added that by the time his presidency is over, "I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Mr. Obama said he had asked the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He reiterated his pledge to try to reverse the Defense of Marriage Act and said he would work for legislation aimed at preventing workplace discrimination, extending the federal hate-crime law to acts against gays and lesbians, and giving domestic partners of federal workers health and other benefits.

And he said he was committed to repealing rules that prohibit people with HIV from traveling into the U.S.

Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights group, was at the event and said afterward that he appreciated the president's strong words. But he added: "It is the actions to advance equality -- not simply the words -- that will be the true marker by which this White House will be judged."

SLDN’s Executive Director on President’s Remarks

2009-06-29T23:11:20-05:00

SLDN was heartened by what we heard the President say this afternoon at the White House regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We were particularly pleased that he has been discussing an implementation plan with the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we hope to hear a more detailed plan and timeline. On behalf of LGBT service members, we will continue to stress the urgency in getting rid of this law, and look forward to working with the Obama Administration to achieve full legislative repeal over the next year.

America Blog: A Message for Those LGBT “Leaders” Going to the Big Gay White House Party

2009-06-29T14:50:36-05:00

For any gay A-lister who may be going to the White House party on Monday; Get a good look at the picture below. The man's name is Victor Fehrenbach. He's being kicked out of the military because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- under Commander-in-chief Barack Obama (who promised to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) Fehrenbach wasn't invited by the White House directly. Servicemebers Legal Defense Network is bringing him as its guest to the party on Monday. (SLDN had the protest in front of the White House on Saturday.)

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach better meet the President.

Now, we keep hearing that the noble people who are going on Monday are planning to talk about issues and really let the White House know we've got problems. That's BS. Many of them had a chance two weeks ago in the Oval Office to tell the president what they thought, and how many of those groups let him have it? This is a show-off event for the star-f*ckers, and it's a chance for the Obama administration to use our community's "leaders" for some much-needed CYA. They'll show the world how much they really do love the gays, after all, they gave them champagne! The White House is taking full advantage of this.

But, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach isn't a star-f*cker, and he's probably not somebody the White House wants to see at all.

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach actually has a message for the President about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's a message the President needs to hear -- so Fehrenbach better be able to deliver it. When Obama enters the room, everyone else clear away. Our "leaders" need to make sure Fehrenbach meets Obama. It'll be very ugly if the A-list gays all swarm Obama and the one person who actually has a message for the president, the one person who isn't there to suck up and sell out our community, isn't able to deliver it. That would be a big problem and will tarnish the reputations of everyone who prevents it from happening. Got that, A-list gays?

We're watching.

Frank Rich, New York Times: 40 Years Later, Still Second-Class Americans

2009-06-29T04:29:51-05:00

June 28, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
40 Years Later, Still Second-Class Americans
By FRANK RICH

LIKE all students caught up in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, I was riveted by the violent confrontations between the police and protestors in Selma, 1965, and Chicago, 1968. But I never heard about the several days of riots that rocked Greenwich Village after the police raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn in the wee hours of June 28, 1969 - 40 years ago today.

Then again, I didn't know a single person, student or teacher, male or female, in my entire Ivy League university who was openly identified as gay. And though my friends and I were obsessed with every iteration of the era's political tumult, we somehow missed the Stonewall story. Not hard to do, really. The Times - which would not even permit the use of the word gay until 1987 - covered the riots in tiny, bowdlerized articles, one of them but three paragraphs long, buried successively on pages 33, 22 and 19.

But if we had read them, would we have cared? It was typical of my generation, like others before and after, that the issue of gay civil rights wasn't on our radar screen. Not least because gay people, fearful of harassment, violence and arrest, were often forced into the shadows. As David Carter writes in his book "Stonewall," at the end of the 1960s homosexual sex was still illegal in every state but Illinois. It was a crime punishable by castration in seven states. No laws - federal, state or local - protected gay people from being denied jobs or housing. If a homosexual character appeared in a movie, his life ended with either murder or suicide.

The younger gay men - and scattered women - who acted up at the Stonewall on those early summer nights in 1969 had little in common with their contemporaries in the front-page political movements of the time. They often lived on the streets, having been thrown out of their blue-collar homes by their families before they finished high school. They migrated to the Village because they'd heard it was one American neighborhood where it was safe to be who they were.

Stonewall "wasn't a 1960s student riot," wrote one of them, Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt, in a poignant handwritten flier on display at the New York Public Library in the exhibition "1969: The Year of Gay Liberation." They had "no nice dorms for sleeping," "no school cafeteria for certain food" and "no affluent parents" to send checks. They had no powerful allies of any kind, no rights, no future. But they were brave. They risked their necks to prove, as Lanigan-Schmidt put it, that "the mystery of history" could happen "in the least likely of places."

After the gay liberation movement was born at Stonewall, this strand of history advanced haltingly until the 1980s. It took AIDS and the new wave of gay activism it engendered to fully awaken many, including me, to the gay people all around them. But that tardy and still embryonic national awareness did not save the lives of those whose abridged rights made them even more vulnerable during a rampaging plague.

On Monday, President Obama will commemorate Stonewall with an East Room reception for gay leaders. Some of the invitees have been fiercely critical of what they see as his failure, thus far, to redeem his promise to be a "fierce advocate" for their still unfulfilled cause. The rancor increased this month, after the Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the most ignominious civil rights betrayal under the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton.

The Obama White House has said that the Justice Department action was merely a bureaucratic speed bump on the way to repealing DOMA - which hardly mitigates the brief's denigration of same-sex marriage, now legal in six states after many hard-fought battles. The White House has also asserted that its Stonewall ceremony was "long planned" - even though it sure looks like damage control. News of the event trickled out publicly only last Monday, after dozens of aggrieved, heavy-hitting gay donors dropped out of a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser with a top ticket of $30,400.

In conversations with gay activists on both coasts last week, I heard several theories as to why Obama has seemed alternately clumsy and foot-dragging in honoring his campaign commitments to dismantle DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. The most charitable take had it that he was following a deliberate strategy, given his habit of pursuing his goals through long-term game plans. After all, he's only five months into his term and must first juggle two wars, the cratered economy, health care and Iran. Some speculated that the president is fearful of crossing preachers, especially black preachers, who are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. Still others said that the president was tone-deaf on the issue because his inner White House circle lacks any known gay people.

But the most prevalent theory is that Obama, surrounded by Clinton White House alumni with painful memories, doesn't want to risk gay issues upending his presidency, as they did his predecessor's in 1993. After having promised to lift the ban on gays in the military, Clinton beat a hasty retreat into Don't Ask once Congress and the Pentagon rebelled. This early pratfall became a lasting symbol of his chaotic management style - and a precursor to another fiasco, Hillarycare, that Obama is also working hard not to emulate.

But 2009 is not then, and if the current administration really is worried that it could repeat Clinton's history on Don't Ask, that's ludicrous. Clinton failed less because of the policy's substance than his fumbling of the politics. Even in 1992 a majority of the country (57 percent) supported an end to the military ban on gays. But Clinton blundered into the issue with no strategy at all and little or no advance consultation with the Joint Chiefs and Congress. That's never been Obama's way.

The cultural climate is far different today, besides. Now, roughly 75 percent of Americans support an end to Don't Ask, and gay issues are no longer a third rail in American politics. Gay civil rights history is moving faster in the country, including on the once-theoretical front of same-sex marriage, than it is in Washington. If the country needs any Defense of Marriage Act at this point, it would be to defend heterosexual marriage from the right-wing "family values" trinity of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter.

But full gay citizenship is far from complete. "There's a perception in Washington that you can throw little bits of partial equality to gay people and that gay people will be satisfied with that," said Dustin Lance Black, the screenwriter who won an Oscar for "Milk," last year's movie about Harvey Milk, the pioneering gay civil rights politician of the 1970s. Such "crumbs," Black added, cannot substitute for "full and equal rights in all matters of civil law in all 50 states."

As anger at White House missteps boiled over this month, the president abruptly staged a ceremony to offer some crumbs. The pretext was the signing of an executive memorandum bestowing benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees. But some of those benefits were already in force, and the most important of them all, health care, was not included because it is forbidden by DOMA.

One gay leader invited to the Oval Office that day was Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, an advocacy organization for gay families based in Massachusetts. She showed a photo of her 7-year-old twin sons, Tom and Tim, to Obama. The president cooed. "I told him they're following in Sasha's footsteps, entering the second grade," she recounted to me last week. "It was a very human exchange between two parents."

Chrisler seized the moment to appeal to the president on behalf of her boys. "The worst thing you can experience as parents is to feel your children are discriminated against," she told him. "Imagine if you have to explain every day who your parents are and that they're as real as every family is." Chrisler said that she and her children "want a president who will make that go away," adding, "I believe in his heart he wants that to happen, his political mistakes notwithstanding."

No president possesses that magic wand, but Obama's inaction on gay civil rights is striking. So is his utterly uncharacteristic inarticulateness. The Justice Department brief defending DOMA has spoken louder for this president than any of his own words on the subject. Chrisler noted that he has given major speeches on race, on abortion and to the Muslim world. "People are waiting for that passionate speech from him on equal rights," she said, "and the time is now."

Action would be even better. It's a press cliché that "gay supporters" are disappointed with Obama, but we should all be. Gay Americans aren't just another political special interest group. They are Americans who are actively discriminated against by federal laws. If the president is to properly honor the memory of Stonewall, he should get up to speed on what happened there 40 years ago, when courageous kids who had nothing, not even a public acknowledgment of their existence, stood up to make history happen in the least likely of places.

WashPost: No to Stop-Loss

2009-06-27T20:05:18-05:00

Washington Post
Editorials
Do Tell: President Obama and Congress should let gay men and lesbians serve.
Saturday, June 27, 2009

THE SUPREME Court's decision this month not to hear Pietrangelo v. Gates saved President Obama from the uncomfortable task of defending in court a policy he says he wants ended: the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. He has asked the Pentagon to assess the policy. And he is taking other steps (more quietly than some advocates would like) to enlist the Defense Department behind his effort to end "don't ask, don't tell." Yet gay rights activists are urging Mr. Obama to take an interim step that is a poor substitute for simply abolishing the policy.

The proposal, which came from the Palm Center of the University of California at Santa Barbara, has gained traction since it was offered last month. It argues that the president "has the authority to issue an executive order halting the operation of 'don't ask, don't tell.' " The power to do so is granted him under "Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation"; this power can be exercised only during a national emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.

This is known as "stop-loss," and President George W. Bush used it to extend the tours of duty of troops in Iraq. As the Palm Center report points out, "the use of stop-loss to suspend homosexual conduct discharges would . . . allow ongoing service by those who generally wish to remain in uniform." Once gay men and lesbians are serving openly in the armed forces, the Palm Center contends, "it will become clear" that their service "does not compromise unit cohesion, recruiting, retention or morale."

This provisional action would be a way to indirectly lift "don't ask, don't tell." And the political heat Mr. Obama would face for doing so without first getting the military and key congressional constituencies on board would be intense. Remember what happened to President Bill Clinton in 1993? He tried to end the ban on gays in the military and ended up saddling the nation with an indefensible compromise.

The nation's attitude toward gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military has changed since 1993. A July 2008 Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 75 percent of Americans approved of allowing gays to serve openly. In 1993, support stood at 44 percent. Even former proponents of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy are calling for change. Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1989 to 1993, said it should be reevaluated; Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman from 1993 to 1997, said it should be abolished.

So gay rights advocates shouldn't be looking for ways to get around existing policy; they should be looking to change it without evasion. And if Mr. Obama is going to expend political capital to allow gay men and lesbians to serve their country openly and with honor, he should follow through on his promise to work with Congress to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell" for good.

Rachel Maddow: Obama Stonewalling Gay Rights?

2009-06-24T13:53:15-05:00

Last night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow interviewed Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach on his life after coming out as gay in the military and his hope in President Obama overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

SLDN to March on White House

2009-06-23T19:07:48-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2009

CONTACT: Paul DeMiglio, Sr. Communications Manager
PHONE: (202) 621-5408

SLDN March on White House to Honor 40th Anniversary of Stonewall, Call on President to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Washington, D.C. - The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and its allies will commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots by leading a march of 265 veterans, service members and supporters to the White House 2 p.m. Saturday, June 27, to urge President Obama to break his continued silence on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The 265 marchers represent the number of service members discharged this week since the President and the new Congress were sworn in.

"‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' underscores that discrimination against gays and lesbians continues 40 years after the Stonewall riots, and reminds us that many challenges remain in the fight for full equality," said Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director. "Like those who stood up for freedom at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, we will stand up for the freedom to serve. We need to tell President Obama that 265 is enough."

SLDN has been urging the President to speak up and send a bill (the Military Readiness Enhancement Act) to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader that overturns DADT and replaces it with a policy of nondiscrimination.

The marchers will be led by five of the plaintiffs in Cook v. Gates, a Supreme Court case that was filed by the plaintiffs and SLDN in December 2004 on behalf of 12 lesbian and gay veterans discharged under DADT.

SLDN will be joined by the following partner organizations:

• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Center Link
• Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
• International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission
• Knights Out
• Metropolitan Community Churches
• National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Stonewall Democrats

"Every civil rights battle in the past 60 years has been fueled by strong presidential leadership," said former U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant David Hall, one of the Cook v. Gates plaintiffs seeking reinstatement. "And that same leadership is also needed now to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. It's time the President begins fulfilling his campaign promise by publicly endorsing HR 1283 and working with Congress to find the votes."

As long as the President remains silent on DADT repeal, men and women in the military will continue to be fired at a clip of two per day on average. The sense of urgency is palpable.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A journalists' guide is available here.

Resolutions Calling for DADT Repeal Pass in California

2009-06-23T18:28:21-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2009

CONTACT: Paul DeMiglio, Sr. Communications Manager
PHONE: (202) 621-5408

California Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and San Diego City Council Pass Resolutions Urging Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Washington, D.C. - Today the California State Senate and the San Diego City Council approved separate resolutions in support of federal legislation, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283), which repeals the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law banning gay and lesbian service members from serving openly and establishes a policy of nondiscrimination. Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 9, authored by State Senator Christine Kehoe (District 39), passed (4-1) while the San Diego City Council unanimously approved a similar resolution, sponsored by Councilman Todd Gloria (District 3). This resolution officially puts San Diego on record as endorsing the overturn of DADT.

"We applaud the City of San Diego and the California Senate Veterans Affairs Committee for supporting repeal of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and to putting an end to the firing of service members because of their sexual orientation," said Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "Today's vote reflects the views of the vast majority of Americans, both liberal and conservative from coast to coast. The country is ready to get rid of this discriminatory law after 16 years. We encourage other cities to follow what San Diego did, and we urge the State Senate to support SJR 9 when it comes up for a full vote. At least two U.S. service members are fired every day under DADT."

California is home to an estimated 137,000 gay and lesbian veterans (2005), the most of any state in the nation. A June 5th Gallup poll showed that 69 percent of Americans, including a clear majority of churchgoers and conservatives (58 percent), support open military service. Last week the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution calling for an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." San Diego joins New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Palm Springs, CA, to pass resolutions calling for repeal.

The following veterans spoke in favor of the MREA resolutions at hearings in San Diego and Sacramento earlier today:

• COL Stewart Bornhoft, SLDN Military Advisory Council (MAC)
• CDR Zoe Dunning, US Navy, SLDN Board Co-Chair
• Ben Gomez, US Navy (Ret) and Chapter President, American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER) San Diego Chapter
• CAPT Eric McDonald, US Navy (Ret)
• Joseph Rocha, Iraq veteran, US Navy (special weapons handling)
• LCDR Craig Wilgenbusch, USNR, SLDN MAC

SJR 9 will now go before the full State Senate. A final vote is expected in August.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A journalists' guide is available here.

Statement by SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis on DNC Event

2009-06-22T19:17:15-05:00

SLDN will be outside boycotting the Democratic National Committee (DNC) LGBT event in Washington this Thursday. SLDN will be calling upon the President to end his silence on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We will be wearing and handing out buttons with the number 265, representing the number of service members who will have been discharged this week since President Obama was sworn in. We do not, nor would we want to, dictate how members of our board or our Military Advisory Council make their political views known. However, I understand that two board members are attending the DNC event. I also understand they will be making their own spirited and creative statements once inside the room.

Statement from SLDN on Presidents DOMA Remarks

2009-06-17T23:26:02-05:00

What the President failed to mention today was that not all LGBT employees will receive these benefits. Gay and lesbian service members, employees of the federal government, will not be eligible to receive these benefits under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Ironically, Obama said he wants to "retain the best talent" to serve our country. Yet he won't speak out publicly against DADT, the law that fires the best and brightest from the military because they're gay or lesbian. We urge him to break his continued silence on DADT and endorse repeal legislation in the House, or send up his own language to Capitol Hill.

SLDN Urges President to Address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Tomorrow Night

2009-06-17T02:56:11-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kevin Nix (202) 251.5553

June 16, 2009

SLDN Urges President to Address "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Tomorrow Night
Senate Majority Leader Encourages President to Act

Washington, D.C. - In the wake of the frustration, and in some quarters ire, of the LGBT community at how the Obama Administration is handling public policy issues that affect our lives, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network encourages the President to set forth his plan and timeline tomorrow for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"There is no need to run from the issue of gays in the military anymore," said Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN executive director. "This is not 1993. The American public, including 58 percent of conservatives, overwhelmingly supports repeal, as are the younger generation of military leaders. They understand firing someone because of their sexual orientation is not only flat wrong but harms national security. It won't be easy to replace Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a highly decorated F-15E Aviator who has given 18 years of his life to serving this country."

The President should publicly endorse legislation (The Military Readiness Enhancement Act) that ends "Don't Ask, Don' Tell" and replaces it with a policy of nondiscrimination. Or, he should put his campaign rhetoric into writing by drafting his own legislation outlining precisely how to end DADT.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today encouraged the President to send a repeal bill to Congress.

"We [the Senate] 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. 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."

The end goal -- the ultimate prize -- is to undo the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that discriminates against gays and lesbians and harms our national security. In our 16-year history as a legal organization, SLDN has consistently advocated repeal of the DADT law in Congress. Full repeal is the only permanent fix for all gay and lesbian service members.

"President Obama has a critical role in how and when this legislative objective is achieved," said Sarvis. "Congress typically defers to the President on military personnel matters (of which DADT is a part)."

Achieving repeal must be done in a measured, strategic and smart way. But this does not mean there is time for indecision or inaction. The sense of urgency is real. More than 250 service members have been fired by the President since January and hundreds more have left the services because of the DADT law.

New York Times: Letting Gays Serve Openly

2009-06-16T13:40:50-05:00

The New York Times
Opinion
Letter: Letting Gays Serve Openly
Published June 15, 2009

To the Editor:

Re "The Ban on Gays in the Military" (editorial, June 10):

We applaud the editorial advocating a swift end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. We, too, think President Obama should consider all viable options he can take on his own to get rid of this discriminatory law, including issuing a "stop-loss" order.

Whatever action the president decides to take, however, must serve as a catalyst to kick-start the legislative process in Congress, where the ultimate prize - undoing the law - will be won. It's time for the Obama administration to present its plan for repeal, in writing, to Congress.

Many lawmakers are looking to Mr. Obama for his guidance. So are the estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian active-duty service members. And so, too, according to the latest Gallup poll, are a majority of conservatives and weekly churchgoers who now support allowing gay people to serve their country openly.

Aubrey Sarvis
Exec. Dir., Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
Washington, June 11, 2009

Isn’t it Ironic: DADT in Playboy

2009-06-11T13:19:08-05:00

Playboy: Forum
By Ana Marie Cox

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is dangerous and wrong, sapping the Armed Forces of thousands of skilled, patriotic men and women anxious to serve their country. So why is Obama stalling on repealing it?

Last January, Robert Gibbs, spokesman for then-President-elect Barack Obama, fielded a citizen-submitted question about the military's policy of dismissing openly gay soldiers. Thaddeus from Lansing, Michigan asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?"

Gibbs, looking a tad paler and heavier than he is now, was obviously pleased with his own answer: "Thaddeus," he said, "You don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Last month, I asked Gibbs on two occasions if the administration would be getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell," and he took over 105 words and several minutes to give a qualified "maybe."

The administration has moved to the center on a lot of issues since Inauguration, with Obama changing his position on the release of detainee abuse photos, slowing down his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and deciding to keep some of the expanded executive powers that he (and other Democrats) used to criticize. He's also caved on moderate criticism of the stimulus plan and refused to come out against California's Proposition 8. But of all the national security decisions he will make, where Obama winds up on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), has the most potential to affect the everyday lives-and the safety-of troops and civilians alike.

About 12,000 troops have been dismissed under the policy since 1993, and the non-partisan Government Accounting Office has tallied the cost of their loss at $95.4 million in wasted recruiting costs, and $95.1 million in training replacements. These numbers are almost certainly too low. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an 18-year Air Force fighter pilot currently fighting a DADT dismissal, estimates that the United States has spent about $25 million training him alone.

Today, Obama's official position, articulated (or not) by Gibbs, is that "the only durable and lasting way" to overturn the policy is via an act of Congress, but that they are "actively" working with the Pentagon to change it.

On the latter point, the Pentagon's own spokesman told reporters the day before Gibbs' response, "I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building" for don't ask-don't tell to be repealed. Later, pushed by the White House to "clarify" his remarks, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell issued a statement saying "President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen that he is committed to repeal" of the DADT policy.

And on Monday, in a lengthy interview with The Air Force Times, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen expanded on what actions (loosely defined) the White House has taken: "We've had preliminary discussions. I've had preliminary discussions with the President about this. And I think it's important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn't disrupt the force at a time where it's under a lot of stress, and that to me means in a measured, deliberate way over some time to be determined. And I don't know what that would be."

When Obama installed GOP congressman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee John McHugh as Secretary of the Army, it was difficult to square the assurance that repealing DADT was "a priority" for both men given McHugh's lack of action on the issue in Congress.

Let me unwind this a little for you; I speak fluent Washingtonese. There are, in all likelihood, no active discussions between Obama and the Joint Chiefs to undo DADT. It is something that "doesn't make us more safe" (as Obama put it in April 2008), that Obama hasn't changed his mind about, but that he has made a calculated decision not to do anything about. Sometimes I try to imagine how the media might react to the administration taking a similar position on, say, domestic terrorism.

Pressed on their lack of leadership among the Joint Chiefs, White House aides say that the President's ability to act further is restricted by DADT's status as a federal law. And it's true that this is where parallels to Truman's racial integration of the military fall apart-a favorite example of proponents of repealing DADT, who say that, like Truman, Obama could end this particular form of discrimination "with the stroke of a pen."

"We're a nation of laws," pleaded Mullen to the Air Force Times. As a sign of just how uncomfortable the White House is in explaining its shift in policy, at the second press conference where I posed a DADT question Gibbs actually changed the subject to the arguably more explosive issue of Guantanamo Bay-75 percent of Americans favor gays serving openly in the military, only 53 percent think we should close the controversial detention facility. Gibbs brushed off purely executive action by saying, "Try as one may, a President can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America. I think that's maybe been the undercurrent of some of the conversations we've had over the past few days on Guantanamo Bay. But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress."

As our last president proved again and again, this is not actually the case. (And the administration did not in fact wait for congress to act before issuing an executive order to close Gitmo.) Few would advocate that Obama attempt to extend the reach of the executive office to the extralegal lengths Bush and company pushed for, but having already stated his intent to keep some of those expanded powers in place-and, in the case of environmental regulation, use them - why not employ them to restore equality and social justice within the one truly meritocratic institution in American society, the Armed Forces?

In May, a study by University of California at Santa Barbara laid out exactly how Obama might use recognized, non-controversial executive powers to stop the implementation of DADT, if not turn it over completely. U.S. Code Title 10, 12305 gives the President authority to "suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States." This power, colloquially called "stop-loss," is at present keeping more than 13,000 soldiers on duty past the point that they wanted to leave the military. This involuntary extension of service, which has affected more than 500,000 troops since the war on terror began, has been highly criticized and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has assured the new administration that the practice would be retired by March 2011-except for the "scores" of soldiers who have "skills that were particularly important to the war effort," a description that would seem to fit Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point-grad Army Arab linguist fighting a DADT discharge from the National Guard, not to mention the 20 Arabic-speaking soldiers discharged under DADT between 1998 and 2004. But then, the Commanders-in-Chief who presided over those dismissals publically supported DADT; Obama does not.

Most Americans probably think of the ability of gays and lesbians to openly serve in the United States military as a civil rights issue. And, of course, it is. But as he hesitates to take leadership on it, Obama should remember just how urgent a national security issue it is. In the end, Harry Truman didn't integrate the military because it was the "right" thing to do-truth be told, Truman was something of a bigot; with no apparent irony, he once called the White House's black waitstaff "an army of coons." While reportedly horrified by racial violence in general, Truman integrated the military in part because advisers told him that the most "efficient use of African-Americans in the Army" would eliminate discrimination, and because his White House counsel, Clark Clifford, believed that championing civil rights and the courting the African-American vote were essential to winning re-election.

Obama was able count on-and most likely will continue to count on-the votes of those interested in equality for the LGBT community; at the national level, they're not likely to get a better alternative. (Dick Cheney's recent public reversal on marriage equality notwithstanding.) But one of the key components of recent Democratic victories has been candidates' refusal to cede military issues to the traditionally hawkish GOP. Repealing DADT should be a part of reclaiming national security as a bipartisan issue. Honestly, would there be a more "efficient use of gays in the Army" than having them hunt down Islamic extremists, arguably the only group more uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality than social conservatives?

There are signs of hope. For one thing, anonymous administration aides still echo the language of the campaign, saying DADT "does not make us more safe." That's just a small step from acknowledging DADT makes us less safe. Also, LGBT activists I've spoken to see McHugh's silence on the issue over the course of his career as a potentially good sign. And Wednesday, Gibbs reiterated that changing the policy "is a priority of the president's" while fielding questions about McHugh. Also, Democratic consultants are already suggesting the new Secretary of the Army is the right person to institute change: his bona fides from membership on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will allow him to recast the issue in national security terms, while his GOP affiliation will help dispel the notion that this is a partisan issue.

White House aides I've spoken to seem personally frustrated with the administration's slowdown on the issue, and emphasize that the president has not changed his mind. "He brought it up today," one senior staffer told me recently, as though it were a pesky but distant concern. That, too, is Washingtonese. Rough translation: "We'll get it done when we get it done; don't bother me." Such non-affirming affirmations are the order of the day in most administrations. Still, it's disappointing that a White House run by a former community organizer will need to be prodded by activist pressure simply to do the right thing-particularly when it is also the smart thing.

Update:
On Monday, June 8, the Supreme Court - in agreement with a brief filed by the administration - announced that it had refused to accept a petition from one of the plaintiffs in the DADT case of Pietrangelo v. Gates, where the lower court upheld the policy. This in itself is not a significant legal setback: The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (the organization that fights the legal battles over DADT) pointed out in a press release that the Court could not have done much even if it had heard the case-they would have simply sent it back to the lower court. In the same release, the SLDN also made the argument that the courts are not even the right place to fight this battle. Rather, "the best place to make our core argument-that openly gay and lesbian service members do NOT negatively impact unit cohesion, morale, or good order-is in the political arena, i.e., in Congress and the White House."

But if you've made it all the way to end of this article you probably already realize that there hasn't been a lot forward motion in the political arena on this issue. As with the issue of marriage equality, activists have put a lot of effort into court fights on this issue because right now that's where progress is being made. The fact that the Obama administration had little choice in asking the Court to reject the Pietrangelo case (doing otherwise would put them in direct legal opposition to the Pentagon), however, does not make it any easier to accept the logic they used in their brief: DADT, it argued, is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

They're half right. DADT is a threat to both of those things.

Conservatives Shift in Favor of Gays Serving Openly in Military

2009-06-09T18:42:17-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new Gallup poll released last week finds a significant increase in support among conservatives and weekly churchgoers for allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the U.S. military. Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and Republicans (58 percent) now favor repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, up 11 to 12 percentage points from 2004.

"These new numbers reinforce the reality that repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not controversial with the American public," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "We hope the Obama Administration is aware that such clear bipartisan support out in the country exists for repeal. Now that a majority of conservatives are solidly on board, it's time for the President, his senior military leadership, and lawmakers to seize the moment to move legislation through Congress this year. The American people are ready and waiting.

The poll registered the highest support for open service among liberals (86 percent), Democrats (82 percent), and Americans 18 to 29 (78 percent). The poll was conducted May 7-10, 2009 with 1,015 national adults. There is a 95 percent confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

A 2008 Washington Post/ABC News poll found 64 percent of Republicans agree gays should be able to serve openly.

Virtually no other public policy issue registers such high levels of public support.

SLDN Statement on the Supreme Court’s Denial of Cert

2009-06-08T20:22:04-05:00

Washington D.C. - The urgency for Congress and the President to act on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was underscored even more today when the Supreme Court refused to accept a petition from one of the plaintiffs in the Cook v. Gates case challenging the constitutionality of the DADT law. That case was originally brought by lawyers with Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and pro bono attorneys at the law firm of WilmerHale on behalf of 12 brave service members all of whom were discharged under this insidious DADT law, and all of whom proudly stated they would be willing to be reinstated and serve again if the law were invalidated. The Cook plaintiffs lost in the trail court and in the First Circuit and today's action effectively means that these 12 plaintiffs have exhausted all of their legal remedies.

The Court's decision now places greater pressure on the executive and legislative branches to get repeal of this discriminatory law done. Right now, the best place to make our core argument-that openly gay and lesbian service members do NOT negatively impact unit cohesion, morale, or good order-is in the political arena, i.e., in Congress and the White House. Since Cook v. Gates was filed in 2004, a bill has been introduced in Congress (HR 1283) repealing DADT and replacing it with a policy on nondiscrimination. Congress appears receptive to allowing those harmed by DADT to tell their stories and air the facts, and to make the case to the American people about why this law needs to be repealed.

In addition, public opinion polls are sky high in favor of repeal, including conservatives, churchgoers, and Republicans, according to the latest Gallup poll out last week.

Even if the Supreme Court had taken the Pietrangelo case, the Court would not have decided the constitutionality of DADT. If the Court had both granted cert and ruled favorably for Mr. Pietrangelo, the case simply would have sent the case back to the district court for a trial on the merits.

Politico: Gay Groups Grow Impatient with Barack Obama

2009-06-04T19:20:26-05:00

Politico
Gay groups grow impatient with Obama
By: Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin
June 4, 2009 04:32 AM EST

President Barack Obama's promises of change are falling short for one core Democratic constituency: gays and lesbians, whose leaders say Obama's administration isn't keeping up with the times.

Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama's inaction, small jokes at their community's expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.

His most important campaign promises repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service-members have not been fulfilled.

And the news, which emerged quietly earlier this year, that he'd supported same-sex marriage back in 1996, then changed his mind, especially rankles. As mainstream Democratic politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) move to support same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates say that the barrier-breaking president looks increasingly odd for opposing what they see as full equality.

"Obama is out of step with his party, which is overwhelmingly in favor of marriage at this stage," said David Mixner, a veteran gay rights activist who is among the organizers of a march on Washington for same-sex marriage scheduled for this fall. "He's out of step with the next generation."

Gay rights issues have been moving at breakneck speed, none faster than same-sex marriage. Most public opinion polls now show more than 40 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, seen as a fringe issue just a few years earlier. Already, five New England states and Iowa have same-sex marriage laws on the books.

"Politicians are finding out that their voters are moving faster than they anticipated," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who called Obama's place behind that curve "surprising, because he is the next-generational candidate."

She noted that Obama could be concerned about alienating older voters in the Midwest who would be turned off if he came out in support of same-sex marriage.

The White House has been reluctant to spend its political capital pushing Obama's highest-profile pro-gay positions believing, White House allies say, that it could detract from priorities like health care. And it may be even less likely to do next year, with midterms approaching.

But officials have told restive gays and lesbians to give them until the end of this month to show movement on a number of lower-profile issues they support, including restrictions on visas for people with HIV. The Pentagon also has toned down public opposition to reversing the gay ban, and the new secretary of the Army's job will be, in part, to smooth the way for that move.

"The president remains fully committed to advancing LGBT rights. His positions on all of these issues are well-established and well-known. His staff continues to work with Congress on a variety of LGBT issues," said Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff who is the point man on gay and lesbian issues, citing White House efforts to move hate crimes legislation through the Senate. "While we recognize that some in the community are anxious, the president's commitment has not wavered."

Meanwhile, however, marriage equality has emerged as the movement's central issue, a question that's seen as a simple matter of justice and fairness by a growing number of Democrats.

"There's going to come a point where's he going have to deal with it," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who now supports same-sex marriage, said of Obama. "I'm in favor of giving him a little more time. He's got an awful lot on his plate."

"But he is a politician like everybody else, and he's going to respond to pressure. And I don't blame the LGBT community for trying to push," Dean said.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who is openly gay and was a major Democratic donor before being elected last year, said he was "very hopeful [Obama's] position will evolve."

But Polis warned, "If his position doesn't evolve, it could turn off some strong supporters."

Gay leaders in Washington, though, have been loath to publicly criticize the president. They say they still view Obama as an ally and think private talks are more promising than public pressure.

Still, it was especially frustrating for some left-leaning gay figures to see the otherwise dreaded former Vice President Dick Cheney publicly express his support this week for letting states allow gay marriage -- a position that puts him to the left of Obama.

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in an appearance Monday at the National Press Club.

Obama also has been criticized for a joke at the expense of same-sex marriage. After the White House Correspondents Association dinner, columnist Dan Savage fumed that Obama's only reference since being sworn in to the high-profile drive toward same-sex marriage in Iowa had been a joke about going to the state with longtime friend and adviser David Axelrod to "make it official."

"The best he can do - all he's willing to do - is toss off an Adam Sandler-level joke," Savage wrote.

Another Obama ally, writer Andrew Sullivan, recently referred to Obama's stance on gays as "the fierce urgency of whenever."

And on the front line, in the states, gay rights advocates are also growing increasingly impatient with Washington.

"His position has been causing some problems for those of us working in the states, those who are against it are using him for cover," said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of New York's Empire State Pride Agenda, who called on Obama to fulfill another neglected campaign promise and back the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks the federal government from extending benefits to married same-sex couples.

Gay activists cringed recently when reminded by Donald Trump, of all people, that Miss California Carrie Prejean shared the same position on gay marriage as the progressive president.

"I'm still optimistic that the president is going to be good on his word," said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Networks, which opposes the military ban.

"No one believes that [anti-gay federal policies] will be miraculously changed overnight," said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who added nevertheless that his group is "frustrated at the pace of progress."

Behind the scenes, patience is wearing thin.

"People are far angrier than they're saying publicly, because they don't want to jeopardize [White House] relationships with the groups," said John Aravosis, an openly gay blogger who speaks to gay leaders. "But everyone is feeling like we've entered a danger zone where the administration is backing away from us fast, and I can tell you that the professional gay crowd in Washington, D.C., to a person, feels a sense of impending betrayal."

The most heated battle is in California, where some of the same voters who overwhelmingly elected Obama also passed a referendum barring same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 has since energized the state's gay rights movement.

The Army linguist, Dan Choi, spoke at a rally across the street from the Beverly Hills Hilton while Obama spoke inside at a high-dollar fundraiser late last month. The group organizing the rally, the Courage Campaign, has gathered 140,000 signatures on a letter to Obama asking him to rescind the ban.

Back at the fundraiser, Messina had the same message delivered in a somewhat more intimate setting.

He was walking through the men's room at the Beverly Hilton when Mike Bonin, an activist and former Obama campaign staffer who loves the president "the way Walt Whitman loved Abe Lincoln," confronted him.

"I told him I was disappointed that [Obama] talked about justice and equal opportunity and across the street stands Dan Choi, who's about to be booted out of the Army," he recalled of the faucet-side chat.

Messina, Bonin said, responded that the White House hadn't forgotten, and complained that the administration hasn't gotten enough credit for pushing to outlaw hate crimes against gays and lesbians, but was ultimately "noncommittal." Bonin, who said he kept Messina standing by the sinks for about ten minutes before letting him proceed to his destination, said marriage advocates in California have been using Obama campaign tools and strategies to push the White House.

"All the people who signed this petition for Choi, all the people who are outside across the street at this rally, all the people who are coming to these [political training camps] are Obama people who love and support our president," he said. "But he didn't stand up for us, and until he does we're going to love him enough to be tough on him."

Correction: Hate crimes legislation has passed the House, but not the Senate; an earlier version of this story wrongly reported that it had become law.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Andrew Sullivan on CNN: Obama Not Elected to Fire Service Members

2009-06-03T16:15:28-05:00

Andrew Sullivan talked with Anderson Cooper last night about Dick Cheney's statement on same-sex marriage, President Obama's LGBT Pride proclamation, and wondered why "Obama is ducking the core civil rights movement of our time" including repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Click here to watch the segment.