Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 112

WTF - Elaine Donnelly: Navy anti-gay video scandal proof DADT repeal is moral decline of military

Well, what else is anti-gay military hack Elaine Donnelly going to do? Soon she's out of a job and will have all the time in the world to keep her 'do well-Aqua Netted. Fox News, of course, chose to give her a forum to bleat her theory of homo-infection of the moral decline of the military vis a vis the anti-gay video produced on the taxpayer's dime by members of the U.S.S. Enterprise, led by Captain Owen Honors. Elaine:

"Then-CNO Adm. Mullen did not have command authority over the Enterprise, but his rank as CNO invested in him the responsibility to maintain high standards of morale and discipline in the entire Navy. Adm. Mullen failed to discharge this duty with regard to the Enterprise, and members of Congress should hold him accountable. Either Adm. Mullen knew what was happening on the Enterprise, or he did not know about the breakdown in discipline occurring on his watch. Which scenario is worse?" asked Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.

Donnelly, whose organization opposes repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, said Honors' behavior -- and that of the junior officers who participated in the videos -- is "unacceptable" and the offenses are as bad as those "that ruined the careers of countless naval officers (in) the infamous Tailhook scandal involving aviators in 1991."

But she said Honors' actions and his own statements scorning subordinates who complained about the videos suggest that refining discipline "downward" through repeal of the 1993 law on openly gay service will only add to more indiscipline.

"Contrary to assurances that standards of conduct will remain high, and that 'leadership' and sensitivity training can 'mitigate' the consequences of human failings, this embarrassing episode demonstrates how discipline can be incrementally redefined downward, lowering standards for all," Donnelly said. "Adm. Mullen and like-minded allies in the White House, Pentagon and Congress are inviting trouble that cannot be 'mitigated' by wishful thinking alone."

You'll recall the doyenne of discrimination tried to warn Congress of the danger of repealing DADT by presenting her laughter-inducing flow charts of "analysis". A refresher of the lunacy is below the fold.

 
Here was Elaine's prediction of what will unfold if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly.

TX Retired Police, Fireman Collateral Damage In Christian War On Gays

The Christian Right's never ending war to stop teh gays from ever having anything nice or obtaining a modicum of parity with their fellow heterosexual Americans had some unintended collateral damage in Texas in November.

A ballot measure designed to restrict gay city of El Paso employees from obtaining same-sex partner benefits has been determined to have ended the eligibility of retired policeman and firemen and others, Wall Street Journal reports.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos, pls rec if you can.
The ballot measure was a response to the city council passing a law allowing "domestic parters" access to city employees' health and other benefits. The law was gender neutral, allowing both heterosexual and gay partners equal access. According the Wall Street Journal, since they were made available "19 people signed up, adding about $30,000 to the city's $34 million health-care budget."

A coalition of Christians groups formed the basis of the pushback, organized by Pastor Tom Brown of the Word of Life Church. When this amateur theocrat isn't pushing ill-fated ballot initiatives, Rev Brown advertises himself as an exorcist. Perhaps he should have stuck to that gig? After authoring the ballot measure, Brown admits he never ran the language by a lawyer, so I guess this is the sort of thing that can be expected to happen:

Meanwhile, past and current employees are clamoring to reinstate the health benefits, and union leaders are preparing a lawsuit against the city. Counting all those city workers who would lose benefits when they retire, the number of affected people could grow to at least 10,000 over several years, said Ron Martin, president of the local police union.

"We don't want to get into a holy war with the church," he said. "I just wish they would have left us alone."

Yeah, brother, we gay people know the feeling. Why can't they just leave us alone?

Several options for remedy are being discussed. The City Council declined to vote outright to repeal the law. They are looking into amending it. This sets up a stand-off, some council members say they will vote down any amendment that does not restore same-sex benefits. From the WSJ:

Gay activists say the city is responsible for fighting against discrimination. "If you leave it up to the vote, black people would still be riding in the back of buses," said Bill Ellis, secretary for Rio Grande Adelante Inc., a local non-profit group.

Rick Scibelli, Jr. for the Wall Street Journal, more here.

El Paso's gay community have organized peaceful demonstrations of opposition at the Word of Life Church, holding signs like "Whose health insurance would Jesus vote away?" KVIA-TV has a video report of the protest action. The protests aren't sitting well with the good Reverend, having done his damage, he's ready to move on. He is quoted in the Dallas Voice:

"This is a place where people have their particular views, and they shouldn't be put to ridicule because a particular church doesn't correspond to the public view," said Brown.

Well, isn't that convenient? Now, the good pastor wants a little respectful privacy. This whole mess would never have transpired if you had kept your church's values on church property, would it? But I guess God told you double standards are OK, huh?

So, Rev. Tom Brown, have you learned a lesson? Do you see when you perpetuate evil on one people, you may be unable to contain the evil you unleash? Are you sorry?

Mr. Brown admits the city's interpretation of the measure does not match what his group intended, but says city officials have to respect the will of the public. "I have no regrets," he said. "We did what was right."

Sigh. Jesus weeps.

Please read Ana Campoy's story at the Wall Street Journal, she has done an excellent job reporting it.

NBC: Navy Captain Owen Honors to be relieved of command for producing offensive video

As a follow-up to our earlier post ("Anti-LGBT, bestiality-suggestive Navy videos produced by captain w/your tax dollars") the Navy is investigating the production and broadcast of video "entertainment" for service members aboard the U.S.S Enterprise by Captain Owen Honors. The shenanigans made with your tax dollars included:

sailors parade in drag, use anti-gay slurs, and simulate masturbation and a rectal exam. Another scene implies that an officer is having sex in his stateroom with a donkey

NBC now reports that Owens will be temporarily relieved from his post as early as today while the Navy investigates.  (NBC, via Americablog):

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

Jim Miklaszewski (stand up): NBC News has learned that Capt. Owen Honors will be temporarily relieved of his command of the aircraft carrier Enterprise as early as tomorrow, pending the Navy's formal investigation into those controversial videos.

That means Honors would NOT BE in command when the ship sails off toward Afghanistan in a couple weeks.

Miklaszewski (on tape): This is what landed Capt. Honors in all this trouble -- a series of raunchy videos, laced with profanity and gay bashing, produced aboard the Enteprise four to five years ago when he was the ship's executive officer, second in command.

Honors (on tape): Well I guess we won't be showing this to the kids at home.

Miklaszewski (on tape): Not only did Honors condone the videos, he took center stage -- appearing in one edited shot as three different people.

Honors (on tape): Finally, let's get to my favorite topic, and foreign to the gay kid over there, chicks in the shower.

Miklaszewski (on tape): In flips-flops and a shower cap, Honors plays to the camera -- revealing both men, and women supposedly showering together. In another segment Honors unleashes a barrage of hard-core profanity. At one point, Honors and others engage in simulated sex acts -- unconcerned that any of his crew, men or women, may be offended.

While videos like this are not uncommon in the military -- Navy officials say THESE videos have crossed a line -- calling them "clearly inappropriate" and "not acceptable in today's Navy."

Navy investigators also want to find out how Honors was promoted to the top commander of the Enterprise, even after these videos were first discovered four years ago.

Jack Jacobs (on tape): Well his chain of command must have thought his benefits to the Navy far outweighed the stupid things he was doing.

Miklaszewski (on tape): Up until now, Captain Honors has had a stellar military career. He was known as a serious-minded aviator and commander of an F-14 squadron when he took Tom Brokaw on a combat flight over Afghanistan in 2002. And more than 1500 fellow sailors took to Facebook today to express their admiration and support for Honors.

Pete Clark (on tape): People love him, they love him. I've never heard the crew of a ship love their XO and a captain more than Opie, Honors.

Miklaszewski (on tape): But Navy officials say these videos now raise serious questions about Honors judgment and leadership.

 

Rev. Eddie Long will not fight charges of sexual coercion, will try to mediate instead

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

This addition to the Eddie Long controversy happened last year but it is something that should be known.

Months after making a huge announcement in front of his congregation that he intends to fight charges lodged against him by four former male congregants of sexual coercion, the Rev. Eddie Long has instead chosen to mediate with his accusers to avoid going to trial.

From the Huffington Post:

With little fanfare or news coverage, the four sexual coercion lawsuits confronting Bishop Eddie Long had the first hearing recently, with both sides opting for mediation to avoid a trial.

Why no major news outlet or editorial columnist has discussed the implications of such a move is nothing less than egregious in nature. Despite the initial media crush and coverage and the incessant analysis of Bishop Long's statement on his website and "sermon," there's been nary a peep in response to the quest for mediation.

Granted, if the future mediation in February does not solve the dispute, there is a tentative trial date set for July 11, 2011. This could still end up being resolved in a courtroom.

Bishop Eddie Long agreeing to mediation of sexual coercion charges is an end-run around the universally accepted moral and ethical responsibilities of any ecumenical leader. Mediation of sexual allegation grievances is tantamount to an admission of "some" guilt, "some" form of ministerial misconduct. Innocent folk don't make deals if the claims against them are baseless and untrue. Mediation for the accused is a forfeiture of the right to ever claim innocence, and readers should be absolutely clear on this point.

At this point, it is not known why Long has agreed to mediate but it is worth mentioning that late last month, it came out that he is linked to a questionable mortgage scheme that is under investigation by federal authorities.

The controversy began in September when two young men sued Long, accusing him of coercing them into sex. Long was accused by a third man and then the controversy got huge when not only two of the men chose to do television interviews, but pictures of Long (allegedly sent to one of the men) surfaced. Then a fourth accuser came public.

The nature of the scandal is especially biting to Long because he is publicly known for not only opposing gay marriage but also homosexuality in general. In 2004, he led a march of over 25,000 opposing gay marriage and gay rights.

Hat tip to Americablog Gay.

Related post:

Eddie Long scandal - Chronology of what has happened and where we are now

The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures

[image error] EPIC's kicking off the new year with a bang on January 6 in Washington DC:

This one-day public conference will be devoted to an assessment of the  TSA airport security procedures and recommendations for reform. Experts  in law, aviation security, and health safety, advocates for flyers  rights, privacy protection, and religious freedom, as well as lawmakers  and policy advisors will participate in the event.  The event will also  include a rich media display, with images from airport protests, YouTube  videos, and campaign materials.

Speakers include a lot of the key advocates: Kate Hanni of FlyersRights, Chip Pitts of BORDC, Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, security expert Bruce Schneier, pilot Michael Roberts of Fed Up Flyers, Nadhira Al-Khalili of CAIR, Jim Harper of the Cato Institute, and Ginger McCall and Lillie Coney of EPIC.  It's a great program, ending with a strategy session involving Congressional staffers. And the timing is perfect: taking the initiative as everybody comes back from vacation.

For those of us who can't be there in person, it'll be streamed live via the http://epic.org/events/tsa/, and there will be Twitter discussion on the #ScanTSA hashtag.  There's also a Facebook event.  Invite your friends!

Stay tuned for more information -- and help get the word out!

SCOTUS Caveman alert - Scalia: Women don't have constitutional protection against discrimination

What's next in the intellectual bloviating of conservative activist SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia - is slavery OK? We already know he doesn't believe in the right for two consenting adults to engage in anything other than PIV sex.

He was interviewed recently and let loose this flaming pile of horseshite:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

What do you do when the original meaning of a constitutional provision is either in doubt or is unknown?

I do not pretend that originalism is perfect. There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot. ... We don't have the answer to everything, but by God we have an answer to a lot of stuff ... especially the most controversial: whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, whether there's a constitutional right to abortion, to suicide, and I could go on. All the most controversial stuff. ... I don't even have to read the briefs, for Pete's sake.

Amanda Terkel at Huff Post covered the reaction to "Little Tony's" latest belching of retrograde thinking.

For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

No big GOP tent for you, homos - all RNC chair candidates support 'sanctity of man-woman marriage'

Michael Steele is fighting to keep his job as lawn jockey Chairman of the RNC and was at today's National Press Club debate. Of course the inevitable questions about social issues came up and SURPRISE! -- they all oppose marriage equality. Watch it (via The Wonk Room):

 - MICHAEL STEELE: "It's foundational to who we are as a nation, how we define ourselves as people...not to the exclusion of others, not to diminish anyone's individuality, but to say in a very supportive way that the family unit, the family concept, is an ideal that we aspire to."

  - REINCE PRIEBUS: "It's foundational in our lives... I don't believe anybody should be denied dignity in this discussion, everyone should be loved. But at the end of the day, I believe that marriage - through the sanctity of marriage - should be between one man and one woman."

  - ANN WAGNER: "It is the true fabric of our society."

  - SAUL ANUZIS: "I think very straight forwardly, marriage is both a religious and a cultural institution that has existed for over 2,000 years...I think that our both belief in our kind of activity to promote marriage and promote the nuclear family is an important distinction that we have in America versus almost every other country in the world."

  - MARIA CINO: "I believe in traditional family."

***

UPDATE: In related news, on Huff Post, President of People for the American Way, Michael B. Keegan, has an interesting piece, "A Gay Tempest in the Tea Party", about the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and the internal strife over the participation of GOProud.

In November, a group of Religious Right organizations, getting wind of the fact that GOProud planned to return to the CPAC in 2011, wrote to the conference's organizers informing them that they would boycott the event if the gay group was allowed to participate. In a curious compromise, CPAC's organizers said they would allow both GOProud and the far-right nationalist group the John Birch Society to participate. The protesters, including the National Organization for Marriage (apparently no longer interested in a beer summit), stuck to their boycott. Last week, in a great culture wars coup, they were joined by two of the nation's most prominent Religious Right groups, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America. Soon after, WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah chimed in with a call to "purge" the conservative movement of gays and gay rights supporters.

The Religious Right's joint tantrum over the presence of gay people in the conservative movement is hardly going to derail CPAC, which has lined up an impressive slate of speakers, including Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, and Mitch McConnell. These politicians, adept at harnessing the energy of the Religious Right and the bank accounts of economic libertarians, are not going to be scared away by the latest iteration of the right-wing family feud. But they would be wise to stop and think about what it means for the future of their party.

The battle over gay groups at CPAC represents one of the biggest stress fractures in the Republican coalition--a small segment of the base devoted to denying rights and recognition to gay people is running up against an American public that really doesn't mind gay people serving in the military and in increasing numbers doesn't mind them marrying either. Although political expedience has kept anti-gay and even some gay groups allied to the GOP, as gay rights become an accepted fact of American life, the party will have to choose between including the excluders and including the excluded.

It doesn't sound like Steele or his cohorts are getting the message and continue to pander to the fundie fringe.

 

Lesbian mom takes her life after losing visitation case

From the Dallas Voice, a horribly sad situation.

Last July, I wrote about Debie Hackett, who was fighting with her former partner for visitation rights with their son. An appeals court gave her the right to assert her parental rights and sue for visitation and the case was remanded to the lower court. When I spoke to her, she was hopeful that she would be able to see her son soon.

This month she lost her case.

Despondent, Hackett took her own life on Christmas Eve.

Could interpretation of laws to discount a same-sex relationship be the underlying cause of this needless death?

I'm not certain you can say "yes" to that last question. The court system in many states do not support LGBT couples during the process of working out family court issues. However, this story is a reminder that whether it's same-sex or opposite-sex couples, breakups and custory/visitation battles take a toll on all involved that can result in tragedies like this. It's hard to pinpoint any one cause other than a person in crisis didn't get the help she needed in time.  

Video break: Pat Robertson's predictions for 2011 (note - it's going to be a good year for him)

Via Right Wing Watch. Pat Robertson reports that God has told him 2011 will be a difficult year for the world but his CBN empire will prosper.

End the ROTC ban? Not so fast, NY Daily News!

New York Daily News posted an editorial on December 29, "Columbia and other Ivy League campuses must reopen their gates to ROTC." The tone is strident and wholly unqualified:

With Don't Ask, Don't Tell dead, that objection is now officially overruled. To his credit, [Columbia University President] Bollinger acknowledges as much; he has announced a task force that will examine whether the university should fully rejoin ROTC.

The answer: yes. As soon as humanly possible.

The problem is NY Daily News Editorial Board is basing their recommendations on several errors in fact.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos. Please rec if you can.
The biggest problem is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law hasn't been repealed yet. You don't have to take my word for it, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said so himself, quoted widely across the news media following the President's signing of the bill:

"To prevent any confusion, I want to be perfectly clear: At this time, there are no new changes to any existing department or service policies," Gates wrote to senior officials such as Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, who is the department's point man on implementing the repeal. "Service members who alter their personal conduct during this period may face adverse consequences." [Dec 23, 2010]

It's rather disappointing to see the Daily News presenting this as fait accompli, when it is, in fact, not.

New York Daily News' sense of urgency seems misplaced. I'd recommend they send their "as fast as humanly possible" advice to the Department of Defense, regarding the finalizing of the new DOD regulations and to President Obama, Sec Gates and Adm Mullen to certify actual repeal of the law. Why Universities must rush, while the DOD receives little or no pressure, escapes me.

The editorial is filled with misleading language, "The welcoming of openly gay men and women..." Respectfully, gay servicemembers will be "welcomed" when they can walk into a recruiting station say, "I'm gay, and I'm here to serve my country," and the recruiter shows them a pen, not the door. But that day is not today. It won't be tomorrow. Def Sec Gates isn't saying when that day will come.

Daily News is by no means alone with this sloppy, inaccurate relaying of non-facts. That "this is done" is pretty much been so widely repeated it has transcended the factual record.

Columbia is looking the issue, and well they should. But it isn't nearly as simple and clear-cut as NY Daily News and others would make it out to be, and not just because that, well, DADT is still in effect. Columbia President Lee Bollinger is quoted in the article as saying ROTC had no place at Columbia because "the university has an obligation, deeply rooted in the core values of an academic institution and in First Amendment principles, to protect its students from improper discrimination and humiliation."

Even if and when DADT repeal is certified and the law repealed, the military's practices do not yet square with Columbia's non-discrimination policy. Columbia includes gender identity in its non-discrimination policy. But the ban on transgender servicemembers will remain after DADT is gone. There appears to be little movement to address that discriminatory policy.

Of course what to do with the ROTC campus bans is a conversation that's time has come. But I'd suggest NY Daily News and other outlets back off on making demands until they have a clearer understanding of the facts.

Columbia University and others are not obliged to set their policy based on what people think happened with the legislation. One would have hope the editorial pages of America would also make their recommendations based on facts.