Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 118

NC: Supreme Court voids same-sex couple's second parent adoption

It's a horrible ruling -- this effectively places all same-sex couples who have completed second parent adoptions in a gray area and the door is now shut on any further same-sex couple adoptions of the kind in question, leaving our legislature to deal with the adoption statutes. That's really bad news, since our GA just rolled over to complete GOP control in the midterms.

The case is Boseman v. Jarrell and involves Julia Boseman, North Carolina's first openly gay member of the General Assembly (she did not run for re-election and leaves office this month) and her former partner Melissa Jarrell.

The state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the adoption of Melissa Jarrell's son by state Sen. Julia Boseman was invalid because a Durham County District Court judge waived a requirement five years ago that Jarrell had to give up her parental rights in the process.

Under the adoption plan approved by the lower court, Boseman became an adoptive parent while Jarrell retained full parental rights as well.

...The majority of justices let stand another lower court ruling allowing the two to have joint custody of the child, saying it would be in Jacob's best interest for the women, who have been sharing parental responsibilities, to rear him.

Still, the ruling eliminates a method for same-sex couples to adopt and could raise legal questions about so-called "second parent" adoptions like this one. They have been granted in Durham and Orange counties in recent years, according to testimony and court documents.

With the wingnuts poised to re-introduce a marriage discrimination amendment next session, we're about to enter a really challenging period for civil rights progress.

The sad part about the GOP rollover is that it's not based on any trend toward conservatism (see Richard Burrs' DADT repeal vote); the midterm switchover was due to the fact that the economy sucks and Dems were blamed. News14Carolina reported last week that the state just posted the largest job loss last month -- 12,500. The elections were clearly a response to this continuing recession. But with that comes a huge hurdle for LGBT activists here as the wingnuts roll into office.

White House Staff: It Gets Better

Hot in the inbox from the WH...the blog post is here. As you can see, it leads off with Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (aka the LGBT liaison) Brian Bond.

Inspired by President Obama’s It Gets Better video, several LGBT White House staffers decided to add their voices to the project. President Obama has more LGBT appointees than any previous administration and he is committed to making his administration reflect the diversity of our nation.

If you’re a young person who’s been bullied or harassed by your peers, or you’re a parent or teacher who knows a young person being bullied or harassed, here are a few resources that can help you:

The Trevor Project 

The Trevor Project is determined to end suicide among LBGTQ youth by providing resources and a nationwide, 24 hour hotline.  If you are considering suicide or need help, call: 866-4-U-TREVOR (866-488-7386).

BullyingInfo.org

BullyingInfo.org is a project of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP) focused on providing tools and resources for youth, parents, teachers and mental health providers to prevent and address bullying. 

It Gets Better Project

President Obama's video and Vice President Biden’s video are just a couple of the thousands of videos submitted by people across the country to inspire and encourage LGBT youth who are struggling.  You can watch more videos at ItGetsBetterProject.com.

For even more information and resources visit or call:

·         Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)

·         Matthew Shepard Foundation

·         Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)

·         National Suicide Lifeline 800-273-TALK (8255)

Harvard shamefully reopens campus to ROTC while throwing transgender students under the bus

This has me absolutely fuming.  Once DADT has been repealed, Harvard University will reopen its campus to ROTC.  

I look forward to pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard's full and formal recognition of ROTC. I am very pleased that more students will now have the opportunity to serve their country. I am grateful to the Massachusetts delegation for their unified support for repeal.

-- Harvard President Drew Faust

ROTC was banished from Harvard in the first place because the military was in violation of the university's non-discrimination policy.  But guess what?  Even with repeal of DADT the US military still continues to discriminate against transgender people, a clear violation of Harvard's policy:

Any form of discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, veteran status, or disability unrelated to course requirements is contrary to the principles and policies of Harvard University.

Can it be possible that the president of Harvard University doesn't know that repeal of DADT doesn't make open service for transgender soldiers possible because the military considers transgender people to have a disqualifying mental disorder (unlike the militaries of major allies)?  Or does she know all too well and hopes nobody will notice Harvard's violation of its own non-discrimination policy, what with all that juicy federal funding hinging on the decision?

If you'd like to contact Harvard University President Drew Faust and ask:

Tel: (617) 495-1502

Fax: (617) 495-8550

president@harvard.edu
Crossposted at Blue Mass Group.

DADT Repeal Is An Opportunity For Trans People

I've seen a shocking amount of resentment coming from different quarters of the trans community over the repeal of DADT that to me is completely unjustified and destructively short sighted.  I’ve seen accusations of the trans community being left behind, and frequent statements of DADT repeal doing nothing for the trans community. I think we seriously need to look at just what was passed Saturday, and examine with optimism the opportunities it represents.

First, we need to look at the bill that the Senate passed Saturday, S.4023. The bill at its heart is little more than a simple repeal of the DADT law that was passed in 1993.  The real meat of the bill is defined in Section 2 (f):

(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-

  (1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--    (A) by striking section 654; and    (B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.  (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

In other words, all this bill does is to undo what was done in 1993, which means that legally, it will simply put us back to where we were before DADT went into effect.  It is of course not quite that simple.  DADT superseded existing policy at the time, so the existing policies have been discarded.  Secondly, there has been a cultural shift since then.  However, it is important to note that S.4023 doesn’t really do anything.  It only undoes something.  It doesn’t put something in place.  It takes something away.  So, to those transfolk who say it doesn’t do anything for the trans community, I will point out that it doesn’t really do much for the gay and lesbian community, except of course to loosen the rope around their necks that has been dragging them down for 17 years.

It further unties the hands of the President when it comes to setting policy in this matter.  Military treatment of gay and lesbian service members will become a matter of policy, not law, once again.  It is important to note that military treatment of transgender service members has been a matter of policy, not law, all along.  Viewed that way, all S.4023 does is to bring GLB service members back up to the place that trans service members have been at all along.  Considering that, complaints from the trans community that we’ve been left behind, we’ve been held down, and this is a bad thing for us start ringing pretty hollow.

Contrary to popular impression, DADT is not repealed with the president’s signature this week.  Section 2 (b) states that it will be repealed 60 days after certain criteria are met:

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of the following occurs:  (1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).  (2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:    (A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report's proposed plan of action.    (B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).    (C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

In other words, nothing changes with regard to DADT until a couple of months after the President and military commanders come up with new policies to replace it.  It doesn’t say what those policies should be.  We are all assuming that our fierce advocate is going to open the doors for GLB service members to serve openly and honestly, but there’s nothing in this law that requires that (and all he promised to do was repeal DADT without specific promise to what would replace it).  It is entirely within the President’s prerogative to reinstitute the exact same policies that were in place in 1993 when Bill Clinton first proposed opening up the military, and DADT resulted as a compromise to the conservative backlash.  Further, no matter what Obama does, a future Republican president can undo them with the stroke of a pen.

The one clear mandate that S.4023 does create is that some policy must be created.  There is no firm timetable, and they could pretty much take an eternity to do it, but there is an expectation that they do it.  That means that the books will be opened.  Policies will be discussed and debated.  New language is going to be drafted.  If that process is in motion, then that process can be lobbied, protested, and influenced.  While the trans community is complaining about being left out of DADT repeal, we are missing out on the opportunity to inject ourselves into the process of writing these new polices for GLB service members to get them to include friendly polices for trans service members as well.  DADT repeal has opened up the greatest opportunity to push for open service for transfolk we have ever seen, and are likely to see again for a generation or two.

It’s time for the trans community to start seeing this glass as half full and looking for ways of using it to our advantage.

DADT: possible WH signing Wed, Palm study on Pentagon training, and Faux News on gays in showers

Some timely news -- Obama to sign 'don't ask' repeal this week -- may hold news conference.

Any bets as to who will be invited to the signing ceremony -- Joe Solmonese? Dan Choi? Victor Fehrenbach? Who do you think should be there?

Though the schedule is being finalized, Gibbs said he expects a formal White House signing ceremony Wednesday morning to sign the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal.

"I think there are a lot of people who are interested in attending," Gibbs said.

***

And in terms of how the military might roll out a repeal, the Palm Center released this information...

New Study: Pentagon Can Train Entire Force Rapidly

Politico.com's Morning Defense column is reporting today about a new Palm Center study that concludes that the Pentagon could easily train the entire force in preparation for the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell." http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/  According to the study, "any claim that DADT cannot be repealed until after the completion of exhaustive training is inconsistent with actual military needs."  The Palm Center provided a preliminary copy of the study to Politico.com and will publish a final version this week.

The new study reviews tools that the Pentagon uses to rapidly train the entire force, including troops deployed in combat zones, and offers case studies in which the Defense Department provided force-wide training within a matter of days or weeks.  The study shows as well that in most cases, the Pentagon implements new policy concurrent with training, rather than waiting for the completion of training before implementing new rules.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to demand a delay lasting through most of 2011 to train the forces in preparation for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

Palm Center scholars argue that training for the end of "don't ask, don't tell" is an uncomplicated task.  Aaron Belkin, Palm's Director, said that "the troops already know how to interact with gays because they do so every day."  The RAND Corporation concluded in 1993 that the "new policy should be kept as simple as possible," and lessons from foreign militaries confirm the same point.  Belkin added that, "When you read the Pentagon's 87-page implementation plan, you see that the transition requirements can be boiled down to just two things: strong leadership and simple rules.  This really isn't rocket science."

***

However, Fox gets right to the heart of what DADT repeal really means (via StopBeck)...

Is The Washington Post helping religious right groups lie about hate group designation?

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

We are extremely happy with the victory yesterday with regards to the Senate repealing DADT, but as the following incident demonstrates, the so-called culture war isn't over yet.

One of the most annoying things about religious right groups is despite their claims to stand for truth and morality, humility and admittance of wrongdoing in the face of obvious evidence is something foreign to them.

And it doesn't help when they are aided and abetted by those who should seemingly know better.

On Friday, Matthew J. Franck is Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ, wrote a piece in The Washington Post about the controversy regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center naming and profiling several religious right organizations as hate groups.

The title of the piece, In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card, should give you some indication of where Franck is going.

Franck criticizes SPLC for naming the Family Research Council and other religious right organizations as hate groups. And according to him, it is because of their stance against gay marriage:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list. 


  . . . The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

But Franck's entire argument is inaccurate. SPLC has said on more than one occasion that opposition to gay marriage was not the reason why these groups were named as anti-gay hate groups or profiled.

 

The organization has made it clear that the designation is because these groups have deliberately spread lies and junk science about the lgbt community. Lies such as:

gay men molest children at a higher level than heterosexuals,gay men have a shorter lifespan,gays contributed to the Holocaust in Germany.
Conveniently, Franck's piece doesn't even address these lies. He tries to make the controversy strictly about gay marriage.

And to be honest, Franck's stance is not accidental. His lie is as deliberate as those of religious right groups when they demonize lgbts.

And here is my problem with The Washington Post giving him room. Franck's piece is not an honest opinion commentary.  The piece uses talking points and phrases that seem to be derived from FRC's  press releases about the controversy, even down to the part "honoring" SPLC for its past work against racism.

In short, Franck's piece is an ad for the Family Research Council's anti-SPLC campaign, sounding as if it came less from his heart and more from a board room.  Perhaps FRC's board room?

The piece is certainly in line with FRC's campaign of trying to make the issue one about gay marriage rather than one about how the organization and several other religious right groups spread lies about the lgbt community in the same manner that racists spread lies about the African-American community.

Certainly any newspaper has an obligation to push both sides of an argument but, for lack of a better phrase, The Washington Post got "punked."

In attempting to be objective, the Post became the victim of a campaign of misinformation that did not only a disservice to itself and its readers, but also to the concept of journalism itself.

THE SKY IS FALLING! ...Again.

Leave it to OneNewsNow to start another "sky is falling" argument. From Fred Jackson's An end to religious liberty in U.S. military?

In the wake of Saturday's Senate vote to repeal the military's ban against open homosexual expression in the military, a conservative legal group is warning that the religious liberty of Christian chaplains and Service members may be in jeopardy.

...The conservative legal group, Alliance Defense Fund, issued a statement after the vote saying "The Senate's cave-in to pressure from activists to impose homosexual behavior on our military will place our troops' religious liberties in unprecedented jeopardy. Indeed, the first official casualty of this hurried vote may well be the religious freedom of chaplains and Service members."  ADF Litigation Counsel, Daniel Blomberg, went on to say " no Americans, and especially not our troops, should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs."

The ADF says it stands ready to defend Service members if they are ever unconstitutionally required to choose between "serving their country or obeying their God as a result of this damaging policy decision." ...

This closely follows the commentary by from a Robert A. Knight in the Washington Times from last July:

Forcing open homosexuality on the armed forces would destroy the volunteer military and bring back the compulsory draft. Since women are now deployed close to combat, and the only legal reason they are not eligible is their combat exemption, a new draft could include our daughters. And some would face pressure to have on-base abortions in order to complete their tours of duty.

Chaplains would be the first victims of Mr. Obama's homosexualization of the military, followed by anyone who violated "zero tolerance" policies for homosexual acceptance. Bible-believing Christians would quickly find themselves unwelcome in Barney Frank's new pansexual, cross-dressing military.

Other fallout includes family housing, reduction in retention, recruitment and unit cohesion, an increase in homosexual sexual assaults and a boost to overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Oh yes, the homosexual, crossdressing, transgender, and transsexual military will be the end of religious liberty. Haven't we heard that argument before regarding other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues?

Let's highlight  -- Again! -- what the religious right has said about how President Obama signing into law of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was supposed to result in the curtailing of religious right free speech.

• "[The House of Representatives approval of a "hate crimes" provision within the defense authorization bill] also sets us on a slippery slope toward serious infringements of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 'Hate crime' legislation will lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith."

~Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

• "[F]reedoms are being lost."

~Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California

• "As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws.

"It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence - under penalty of law - morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle."

~Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel

• "This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are 'more equal than others' based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates 'thought crimes' by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution.  

"Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not."

~Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center

• "There are no 'love crimes' when it comes to violence. The reality is that so-called 'hate crime' laws are designed to punish people for what they think, feel, or believe.

"Violent crimes should be punished regardless of the characteristics of the victim. 'Hate crime' laws are an effort to enforce the orthodoxy of political correctness and to curtail freedom of speech."

~Glen Lavy, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund

• "But 'hate crime' laws are unnecessary. Criminal acts are already illegal. What's more, 'hate crime' laws violate the constitutional right to equal protection, create the un-American offense of "thought crime," and abridge the freedoms of speech, religion and association."

~Robert Knight and Lindsey Douthit for the Concerned Women For America

Let's -- Again! -- hear mistruths and outright lies from many voices on the religious right regarding transsexual people, crossdressing people, and drag performers being able to sensationally and flamboyantly serve openly in the five military services should DADT be repealed...

...Beginning with transgendered soldiers could demand access to therapy, hormone treatment and sexual reassignment surgery"? He also said in another Accuracy In Media piece:

The MASH television spectacle of Corporal Klinger wearing women's dresses to get out of the military may now give way to the Pentagon actually permitting transgendered male soldiers to openly wear women's military uniforms. This is what repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," could mean.

While some might scoff at the idea of transgendered soldiers ever serving in the Armed Forces, the transgendered are an essential component of the so-called LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community pushing repeal of the military's homosexual exclusion policy.

Don't forget that the Obama Administration has already claimed credit for the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy-a man/woman at the Commerce Department named...Amanda Simpson...

Let me just bullet point out some more "great" comments from folk on the religious right:

• From the Center For Military Readiness's Elaine Donnelly:

If [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] is repealed and the military cannot exercise "discrimination" based on sexual orientation in accepting applicants, gender-confused people will join in significant numbers, and have access to the military and veterans' medical systems for their transgender operations. (The Palm Center recently posted a study on the transgender cause titled Summary and Analysis of the 2008 Transgender American Veterans Association Survey.) Defense and Veterans Affairs Department-funded medical coverage is a big deal for the TAVA.

A number of practical questions come to mind-where should "transitioning" individuals be housed-in the men's quarters or the women's? Who gets to decide what a person's gender is-and when? And what about women who don't want pre-surgical men sharing their private quarters, or families who are not comfortable with transgender people teaching their kids in DoD schools and child care centers-the largest institutions of their kind in the world? The opposition's policy seems to be "don't ask, don't tell.

• From WorldNetDaily's David A. Noebel:

Now it's 2010, and President Obama, a man steeped in radical left-wing politics and a kind of Students-for-a-Democratic-Society commander in chief, wants to allow "open" homosexuals in the United States military. Open homosexuality would have to include the GLBTQ gamut - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer. Lambda Legal and the ACLU will insist on it. And Sen. Lieberman already proposed on March 8 a bill "legalizing bisexual behavior in the U.S. Military."

Allowing "gays in the military," therefore, is misleading. Once gays are openly recruited and accepted in the military, their "cousins" will follow suit (lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, queer, etc.)...

...The United States is currently involved in two wars. Is the president out to destroy our military? Can any thinking American wish to see an "open" cross-dressing homosexual Army general trying to gain the trust of his troops (or for that matter, the nation)? Have we as a nation fallen so far that we need to apologize to Sodom?

• From 's Mychal Massie:

Is cross-dressing in fatigues next?

• From an older OneNewsNow piece from Chad Groening:

Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) has introduced what he calls the "Honest and Open Testimony Act," which would allow homosexual and transgender members of the military to openly testify in congressional hearings without fear of retribution. Under the 1993 law passed by Congress, such individuals are not eligible for military service in the first place -- but due to Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" directive, they are able to serve as long as they do not reveal their sexual orientation.

• From Catholic Online's Keith A. Fournier:

The president of the 'public interest' group which is at the forefront of the homosexual equivalency movement, the Human Rights campaign, spoke out immediately after the Senate vote. Joe Solomese [SIC] proclaimed "this has been a long-fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history". They are clear about their goal in their motto "working for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender equal rights".

In the brave new world of their making there are no givens, including being male or female. "Gender" will soon be "chosen" and there will be a legal "right" to that choice. The Human Rights campaign calls this "gender identity and expression". They also call it a "right" and insist everyone recognize it. That is what "transgender rights" is all about.

• From American Thinker's Michael Filozof:

What will be the effect of the end of DADT? The short-term effects will probably be minimal. The military won't be overrun by homosexuals anytime soon. It's unlikely that very many gays, who constitute a tiny fraction of the population, want to serve in the military anyway. But the cultural shift in the military will be dramatic. The military will be forced to deal with issues like anti-gay discrimination (real or imagined), how to deal with transsexuals, gay marriage, and benefits for gay partners. There will be gay affirmative-action quotas, gay cliques and subcultures, and you can be sure that in the future, there'll be some gay equivalent of the "Tailhook" scandal. A military that is in the process of losing it's second decade-long war in Asia to ragtag insurgents needs none of this. But the military, with its "can-do" ethos, will deal with it.

Of course the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell . Of course the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't going to result in the end of religious liberty. But let's not reality get in the way of religious right talking points, okay?

Oh when oh when will the sky fall yet again? With the religious right and other cultural conservatives, I'm sure it'll be sooner than later -- it appears to me that they've a lot of Henny Penny's within the spokespeople of the religious right.

~~~~~

Related:

* Amanda Simpson Took A Job In The Commerce Department Last January! The Sky Is Still Falling!!

* What About "Transvestite Clothing" In The Military?

*

.

Thank you, Rep. Patrick Murphy - DADT repeal couldn't have happened without your hard work

There are a lot of people to thank for the legislative repeal of DADT, but near the top of the list is Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA), whose leadership on this issue never wavered -- and he lost his seat in the political tsunami of the 2010 midterms, but kept on fighting for equality.

A reminder of the Iraq war veteran's leadership -- watch the classic takedown of the doyenne of DADT discrimination, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness during House hearings.

He's a real profile in courage -- you'll recall that in the days leading up to the elections a number of folks in the movement urged people to support Rep. Murphy in a video because of his efforts toward DADT repeal.

Murphy, unlike many pols, is quite accessible. In 2009, I interviewed him at Netroots Nation (video and transcript here), and he came over to the Blend in October to discuss progress on DADT in a liveblog. We need more members of Congress with backbones like Murphy's.

Thank you, Congressman. If you plan to run for office again, you know where you can find support.

Here is a tribute to Patrick Murphy from the good folks at SLDN:

Socarides, Eleveld join new media 'rapid response' initiative EqualityMatters.org

In news that will no doubt stir a lot of conversations inside the professional LGBT movement and inside the Beltway, watchdog group Media Matters founder David Brock and Richard Socarides, former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, have formed what the NYT calls a communications "War Room For Gay Equality" -- EqualityMatters.org --  and have landed Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate's ace Washington correspondent, to serve as its web site's editorial director.

While a range of groups are working to advance gay rights, the movement has lacked a national rapid-response war room of the sort that can push back against homophobic messages in the media and the political arena and keep the pressure on elected officials, said David Mixner, a gay author and activist.

"I think the lesson we have learned over the last two years is that you've got to be tough," Mr. Mixner said, "and you've got to keep people's feet to the fire."

The organizers of Equality Matters say that is their intent. Mr. Socarides and the founder of Media Matters, David Brock, said they began planning Equality Matters several months ago. They quickly persuaded Ms. Eleveld, who covered the Obama campaign and has covered Washington for the last two years, to join them.

"I've spent the past two years with a front-row seat to history, and the longer I sat there the more I felt drawn to participating," Ms. Eleveld said in an interview.

With the disappointment of the congressional logjam dealt to ENDA, DOMA, and other pro-equality legislation, we all know things are only going to worsen for the community on the Hill under GOP rule in the House. Equality Matters intends to build upon the momentum that marriage equality has gained at the state level and in the courts. Richard Socarides touched upon this in his essay on the Equality Matters site, "Why Equality Matters" --

While some policymakers still exist in both parties who think that support for marriage equality is too much to ask, positions on this issue are changing rapidly as the culture of the country progresses.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney, former first lady Laura Bush, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olsen, former party chair Ken Mehlman, and Cindy and Meghan McCain all form the core of Republican supporters of marriage equality.

With New York Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo pushing for marriage equality legislation in the state early this spring and the federal court about to confer it (again) in California, it may not be long before it is the norm for many citizens across the country because of momentum created outside Washington, including in Iowa and the Northeastern states. In fact, in addition to New York, pro-marriage governors were also elected this year in California, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.

Another important factor in the evolution of where we are today is the democratizing impact that "new media" and the Internet have had on the equality movement. Bloggers like John Aravosis, David Mixner, Pam Spaulding, Joe Sudbay and Andy Towle have been an invaluable resource, providing up-to-date, provocative information to the gay political community that it could not get elsewhere.

Partially as an outgrowth of all this information, new gay rights groups like Get Equal and Fight Back New York, formed just this year, were able to demonstrate that you could get results by being tough on friend and foe alike (a fact almost no one in Washington seems to get).

OK, since I was mentioned in the above paragraph, I must also give full disclosure -- I've been asked to serve on the advisory board of Equality Matters and I've accepted because of the outstanding work Media Matters does as a watchdog - it's a welcome extension of its successful model and it goes without saying that friends of the Blend Richard Socarides and Kerry Eleveld are stellar voices backing this initiative up under the MM umbrella.

IMHO (and I'm just speaking for myself here, not for Equality Matters), the LGBT movement has lacked an effective, professional media war room for some time now. The closest model for the current need has been the unorganized-but-influential work to date of the blogs. And as we've seen, that has had distinct limitations, most notably the lack of clarity of what bloggers are individually or collectively to the movement or the media.

Equality Matters is the next phase of development and won't have that issue. With an established communications presence editorially headed up by a respected Beltway journalist (who has represented the community as part of the WH press corps), there is gravitas out of the gate. However, it will be interesting to see how this effort takes on issues as we move into a more politically defensive position with the changeover on the Hill.

Fox News poll says DADT repeal will not affect America's ability to defend itself

Will Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Affect America's Ability to Defend Itself?



This has got to be giving Fox News's GOP handlers heartburn.  The Fox News "You Decide" poll on Saturday asked "Will Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Affect America's Ability to Defend Itself?".

In classic biased Fox News style, the answer choices are all presented in an anti-gay frame.  "Either gay, lesbian and bisexual identity is a preference, it affects troops morale, or it is a lifestyle that makes others uncomfortable," describes Queers United. (emphasis added)

"Will Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Affect America's Ability to Defend Itself?"

No -- Being gay is about someone's sexual preference, not their patriotism, acceptance of duty and their love of country.

Undecided -- We're in a war in Afghanistan, and I'm not sure that this is the right time to undo something that will affect our men and women in combat.

Yes -- At the core of an effective military is trust, and allowing a lifestyle that might cause some members of our military to feel uncomfortable cuts to the heart of that trust.

Other (post a comment)

And yet almost 61% of the more than 54,500 people voting answered "No", ending DADT will not affect America's ability to defend itself.  While reputable scientific polls have consistently shown overwhelming support for the repeal of DADT, the result of this Fox poll is phenomenal for a straw poll posted on a website for social conservatives.  Thanks Fox News for illustrating how out-of-step the Republican party is with it's core supporters!

H/T Queers United