Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 129

Understated headline of the day: McCain Exudes Grumpiness At DADT Hearing

That was how The Wonk Room labeled the bombastic whining of Senator John McCain.

From the very first DADT hearing in February 2010 to today's session, the Senator refused to consider the views of the witnesses before him. This morning - after reviewing the overwhelming positive DADT report and listening to the pleas of the leaders to end the policy in the lame duck session - McCain went further, openly implying that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen was not living up to the expectations of leadership because he did not ask the troops if they favored repealing the policy...

MCCAIN: Then why wouldn't we just ask the question?

MULLEN: Because, I fundamentally sir, think it's an incredibly bad precedent to ask them about, to essentially vote on a policy.

MCCAIN: It's not voting sir, it's asking their views....Now I understand what your answer is. We would not ask their views on whether this policy should be changed or not, as the first question.

MULLEN: We've gotten in great part their views as a result of this survey.

MCCAIN: Well obviously, we'll go around and around, but why we didn't just simply ask them how they felt about it....Again, every great leader I've known has said, what are your views on this issue?

On my Facebook page, some reactions to this video...

George ONeill What a nasty, old prick!

George ONeill ...someone call the Soylent Green truck, STAT!

Ajagbe Adewole-Ogunade constipated someone get him some prune juice

Rob Pilaud Gawd I am tired of him.

Pam Spaulding @George - I think Edward G. Robinson would push him into the dump truck without a nice send off with classical music and flora and fauna video. :)

George ONeill True, Pam...and those would sure be some dry, bitter crackers!

Tim Webster i dont understand his definition of leadership.. it's NOT just listening to the majority (even though the majority in this case agrees with a repeal of DADT)

Michael Bussee Thanks for the great coverage and live blog commentary today!

Lizzie Darling this old fart needs mental help. Poor Cindy and Meghan.

NOTE: A reminder - on Friday at 9AM ET KnightsOut's Sue Fulton and Outserve's JD Smith are back as commentators on the Blend during the Senate debate involving DADT repeal.

The URL for the CoverItLive console is http://tinyurl.com/phbdadt.

You will be able to review Thursday's liveblog on that page as well.

How the Illinois Civil Union Law Works

Wednesday the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. Once the Governor signs it (he says he will), it’ll become law. Here’s how it works:

Who Can Enter a Civil Union
Any 2 people who are 18 or older, including straight couples. The law says a union can be between ”2 persons of either the same or opposite sex.”

However, just as with marriage, certain people cannot enter into a civil union. These include siblings, first cousins, nephews and nieces, or those already married or already in a civil union.

It appears that people from another state can travel to Illinois and enter into a civil union if they wish. However, the civil union can only be dissolved in Illinois.

Rights Compared to Marriage
People in a civil union will be given the same rights as people married. These rights are given by the following clause in the law:

“Party to a civil union” means, and shall be included in, any definition or use of the terms “spouse”, “family”, “immediate family”, “dependent”, ”next of kin”, and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law.

That means that wherever Illinois law says something applies to those above terms, it also applies to people in a civil union. For example, if Illinois has a state tax deduction related to married spouses, it will now also apply to parties in a civil union.

Note that this law does not give civil unions federal marriage rights. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions.

How to Enter a Civil Union
Couples must file an application with a county clerk. Then, the county clerk gets a license from the state Department of Public Health. Then the civil union must be certified by a judge, county official, or religious figure.

Out-of-State Recognition
The new law also adds out-of-state recognition for same sex marriages and civil unions. That means that a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts, for example, will be treated in Illinois as if they have an Illinois civil union.

In addition, the law does not require that the out-of-state relationship be called a “marriage” or “civil union.” It must only be a relationship “substantially similar” to those. This is key, because it’s possible that states could call a marriage-like relationship “domestic partnership,” for example.

[Cross-posted at the Gay Law Report , where I discuss LGBT laws and related news.]

ACLU Challenges State of Missouri on Behalf of Dead Trooper's Husband

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit challenging the state of Missouri's Missouri Department of Transportation and Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement System on behalf of a surviving same-sex partner of a highway trooper killed on the job.



From the ACLU:

Kelly Glossip and Dennis Engelhard had been committed domestic partners for 15 years when Dennis, a Missouri State Trooper, was killed while responding to an accident on Christmas Day, 2009. Missouri offers survivor benefits to spouses of state troopers who are killed in the line of duty, but excludes committed same-sex partners from receiving those benefits.

If Kelly and Dennis had been a heterosexual married couple, Kelly would be entitled to an annuity of 50 percent of Dennis' average salary-support that would help Kelly pay the mortgage on the home that he and Dennis jointly owned.

The Officer Down Memorial Page has information on Edward Englehard here. It makes mention of his life partner and step-son. Press release after the fold.

JEFFERSON CITY, MO - The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU of Kansas & Western Missouri filed a lawsuit today on behalf of Kelly Glossip, whose partner, Dennis Engelhard, was a state trooper killed in the line of duty while responding to an accident on Christmas Day of last year. Missouri offers survivor benefits to spouses of state troopers who are killed in the line of duty, but excludes committed same-sex partners from receiving those benefits. Glossip is seeking the same survivor benefits provided to opposite-sex partners.

"Dennis and I loved each other and lived in a committed relationship for 15 years. We depended on each other emotionally and financially in our life together like any other committed couple. We exchanged rings and would have married in Missouri if the state didn't exclude us from marriage," said Glossip. "I'm just seeking the same financial protections the state provides to heterosexual couples. It is hard enough coping with the grief of losing Dennis. It is even more painful to have the state treat Dennis and me as though we were total strangers."

Spouses of Missouri State Highway Patrol employees are entitled to an annuity of 50 percent of the employee's average salary if the employee is killed on duty. Since Engelhard's death, Glossip has struggled with paying the mortgage on the home they both owned. While Glossip is not challenging the definition of marriage under Missouri law, he is challenging the benefits policy as a violation of his rights under the Missouri Constitution.

"Dennis and Kelly were a family in every sense of the word," said John Knight, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "They owned a home together, shared cars and bank accounts, and Dennis even helped Kelly care for his child from a former marriage. They vowed to take care of each other in good times and in bad. As a matter of basic fairness, Kelly should be entitled to the same security as other bereaved partners of troopers killed in the line of duty."

Engelhard was struck by a vehicle while responding to an accident on Christmas Day, 2009. Following his death, the governor ordered all U.S. and Missouri flags to be flown at half-staff. Kelly attended a ceremony in Washington, D.C. in May 2010 commemorating the loss of police officers nationwide, and was recognized with a medallion as Engelhard's surviving partner.

"Kelly is merely seeking the same treatment he would have received if his partner had been a woman, rather than a man," said Anthony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "Kelly may not have been able to marry the person of his choice under Missouri state law, but he is still entitled to equal protection and the fundamental right to the family relationship he formed with Dennis Engelhard. He is seeking the same dignity and security for his family that is granted to other state troopers' families."

Attorneys on the case include Rothert and Grant R. Doty of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, Stephen Douglas Bonney of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, Knight and Joshua Block of the ACLU LGBT Project and Roger K. Heidenreich of SNR Denton.

From local news coverage of this story:

Glossip said his relationship with Engelhard was no secret at the Highway Patrol. Glossip was listed as Engelhard's emergency contact. They showed up together at a Fourth of July party attended by several other troopers. A room full of troopers mourned with Glossip at the hospital where Engelhard was pronounced dead.

"I'd take 100 Dennis Engelhards. He was an outstanding trooper," said Capt. Ronald Johnson, head of the Highway Patrol troop that covers St. Louis and surrounding counties. "His lifestyle had no bearing on his career."

People who deliver first-class service to the country, do not deserve second-class rewards in return. Our families deserve better from our country.

Thanks to ACLU for stepping up yet again and making the case. Our future may indeed lie in the courts. Particularly when you contrast this action with the reaction of our elected leaders, as quote din the article linked above:

"The partner, plain and simple, is out of luck," said state Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, one of a few openly gay Missouri state legislators. "I'm outraged that that's the situation, but it's the status of the law."

ACLU is fast-becoming the most aggressive gay rights organization on the block, after challenges to DOMA, the Department of Defense compensation policy and DADT. You might consider becoming a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

The Roman Catholic Church indulges in moral relativism on civil unions

The opposition of the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy to marriage equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people is legendary.  Not only does the Catholic Church lobby for anti-equality constitutional amendments and against marriage equality laws, it has been known to fundraise for those efforts and circulate referendum petitions during Holy Mass while the priest gives a homily on obedience.

Not satisfied with undermining marriage equality, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States also tries to undermine passage of civil union and domestic partnership laws by alleging that those second-class legal constructs somehow erode the "sanctity" of civil marriage for heterosexuals.  Civil unions are "an assault on the sacrament and institution of marriage and the family" is how the Diocese of Bridgeport put it.

In light of all that, it is tempting to assume it was a foregone conclusion that the Illinois Catholic Conference would take a proactive position in opposition to the Illinois civil unions bill and bemoan the bill's passage after the fact.  But it wasn't a foregone conclusion at all, because in actuality the Roman Catholic Church indulges in moral relativism where civil unions and domestic partnerships are concerned.
Washington

In 2009 the Washington State Catholic Conference sent one man to a few legislative committees to quietly testify against SB 5688, the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009.  The man was not accompanied by supporters or sign-wavers.  

After the law passed, WSCC posted an unsigned statement on their main web page in support of a referendum aimed at repealing it.  The posting was made with no fanfare and beyond these acts the Catholic Church machine remained silent.  Unlike in other states, Catholic parishoners were not rallied at church to sign the referendum petition, donate to the anti-equality campaign or vote a particular way.

Apparently the Catholic Church, like most of its religious-right colleagues in Washington, saw this particular referendum as a non-starter and thus gave it lip service but no solid backing.  Indeed, Chief of Staff Siler of the Yakima Diocese stated that "our resources are limited, and we think the more important issue will be the question of gay marriage".  (Curious statement, given that the Catholic Church stated that the battle over the domestic partnership law was about marriage.)

Undoubtedly the Catholic Church's minimal participation in the domestic partnership debate was also with an eye towards keeping people in the pews.  Washington has a small Roman Catholic population, many of whom live in the Puget Sound region which heavily supports LGBT equality and sends pro-equality legislators to the state legislature.

Thus to all appearances the Catholic Church acted in Washington based on political and pragmatic calculations rather than standing on principle and boldly defending heterosexual-only marriage from what they said they considered a true threat.

New Jersey

The Catholic Conference of Illinois' publication "Promoting Civil Unions to Undermine Marriage" was intended to explain their anti-civil union position but ironically the title can truthfully be read to mean that the Catholic Church in fact promotes civil unions when doing so might undermine marriage equality legislation.

On December 7, 2009 the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act", a marriage equality bill (S1967).  Committee chair Senator Paul Sarlo and Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference had the following exchange (emphasis added):

SENATOR SARLO:  Thank you, Mr. Brannigan.

I have one question.  Does the Catholic Church support--  We understand there's some potential -- there's loopholes in the Civil Union law -- the current Civil Union law -- that prevents same-sex couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Does the Catholic Church support this Legislature amending the Civil Union law to close up every possible loophole?

MR. BRANNIGAN:  Yes.  The Catholic Church is--  Within a week after the Civil Union Act was passed, I issued a memorandum to all of our institutions.  As a matter of fact, when Seton Hall University then did a global e-mail to all employees notifying them that they should check with their health benefits because now the University was offering benefits to same-sex couples -- and the University noted myself as the author of the direction -- there was -- I received quite a few calls from some individuals who didn't agree with that position.  But we do support the Civil Union Act.

This is a complete reversal from the New Jersey Catholic Conference's opposition in 2006 when the New Jersey Legislature was working to pass the civil union law.  By 2009 however the political landscape had changed and the Legislature was considering a marriage equality law.  It seems clear that under those circumstances the Catholic Church chose to cut its losses and say it supported civil unions so it could declare that marriage equality was not necessary.  As happened in Washington state, the Catholic Church in New Jersey walked away from principle after making a political calculation.

Maine

In 2009 the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland lent its public affairs director Mark Mutty to Stand for Marriage Maine to lead the effort to repeal Maine's new marriage equality law by referendum.  During a debate on the referendum, Mutty strongly endorsed civil unions:

However, it is totally unnecessary for marriage to be redefined in order for them to have those benefits. There are alternatives, and those alternatives I think we're all familiar with, enhanced domestic partner legislation, and other like arrangements can be made that do not fundamentally change the definition of marriage but yet provides those same benefits that they seek. And I fail to see how those benefits would not be available through these alternative arrangements as well as they would through marriage and I think that is the ultimate compromise...

...and again, enhanced domestic partnership legislation, a number of other options, civil unions is certainly an option that will provide all those same benefits, yet recognize that the two relationships are fundamentally if nothing else biologically very different.

Of course this was contrary to the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and presumably Mutty's boss Bishop Richard Malone of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland: "We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage - by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means."

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales openly supports civil partnerships despite pointed rebukes from Pope Benedict.  "Civil partnerships are precisely what they say they are. They're not gay marriages or lesbian marriages. They're simply a legal arrangement between two people so that they can pass on property and other rights in which they were discriminated against before," said Bishop of Nottingham Malcolm McMahon earlier this year.  His view was supported recently by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales who said "We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those."

Despite many statements to the contrary, the Catholic Church clearly doesn't believe that civil unions and domestic partnerships are intrinsic threats to heterosexual-only marriages or they would be fighting them hard at every turn rather than quietly ducking the issue (Washington) or outright endorsing civil unions (New Jersey, Maine and United Kingdom).  Call it pragmatism, call it moral relativism, either way the Roman Catholic Church doesn't always practice what it preaches on the "assault to the sacrament" that allegedly is civil unions.

FRC's DADT Press Conference: Just Call Me "Or Something"

The Family Research Council (FRC) held a press conference on November 30, 2010 on Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). My participation in the White House Fence protests was singled out.

At about the 33-minute mark in the press conference, the speaker (Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center For Security Policy) showed a Slide Of the White House Six, and then calls out my participation in this way:

But I just want to throw up a slide here that we talked about in the abstract as an indication of the kind of modalities that were going to be a problem for the United States Military if the repeal were undertaken.

What's wrong with this picture?

These are, of course, five individuals -- six individuals, excuse me -- who have now professed themselves to be homosexual...or something...

GOP's Dehumanizing of our LGBT troops

There are much to say about the Senate hearings that just concluded. I was quite taken aback to see Sen Evan Bayh emerge as a full-on gay rights hero. Ok, he's not back up for re-election. But neither is Blanche Lincoln and she's as useless as ever. So, good for him.

And there was a lovely irony seeing Lindsay Graham describe findings that most people are OK with gay people as "astounding." Even more so, by the testy exchange he had with Admiral Mullen, where Mullen seemed frustrated with his fruitless attempt to impress on Sen. Graham that there is value in treating gay people with respect and dignity.

But I want to speak to a particular tactic I saw the GOP engaging in: the denial of gay as being a facet of a person's identity. The idea, that being gay is only what goes on in the bedroom.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos, give a rec if you got it please.
We saw Jeff Session push this very overtly. He objected to comparisons to race, saying that gay people are defined only by acts not the color of their skin.

But to anyone who ever adjusted to the idea of accepting a gay brother, sister, son, daughter, mother, father, we know this to be abjectly false. If all that mattered what what someone did in the privacy of their bedroom it wouldn't be a significant revelation, anymore than you'd concern yourself if they liked it cowboy or reverse cowboy.

In truth, we recognize, it realigns our ideas, our expectations, our understanding of people who we've known and loved for years. More often than not, the revelation is overblown. But there are adjustments, the expectation of grandchildren, the challenge of welcoming partners into family gatherings that may not be exactly what were expected. There are concerns for their safety, employment, happiness.

The hypocrisy of this was in full display when Senator Scott Brown used the heart-rending episode of visiting a soldier in Walter Reid Hospital as a backdrop for his remarks. He described seeing a paraplegic veteran doing ab crunches.

Brown said, "I never asked if they were straight or gay."

Fair enough. That might have been a out of bounds question.

But ask yourself, Senator, as you sat next to that soldier's bed, did you ask him, "What's next soldier? When you get home, do you have someone to care for you? Do you have someone who will help you dress your wounds? Do you have someone that may cook you meals, help you get onto the toilet? Do you have someone to drive you to physical therapy?"

Did you concern yourself for more than a passing instant for the reality of these soldier's lives? Because for the LGB servicemembers, the difference in their coming home experience will be stark.

The partners of LGB servicemembers will not have access to VA support groups.



They will not be visited by most military chaplains.



The LGB servicemembers compensation will be different. The financial burden for a non-working partner will be greater for LGB families.



The partners of LGB servicemembers will not be ignored and forgotten. And the whole family will suffer.



We are bonded by more than acts in a bedroom. We are bonded by love.

The discrepancies will continue, until the Defense of Marriage Act falls. In the meantime, the gay community has stepped up to fill the void (see Servicemembers United's new Millitary Partners program.)

We are family. Military prides itself on taking care of families, as they do the servicemembers. But DADT forbids that. DADT leaves LGB servicemembers' families locked out, in the dark, without recognition or support. Active duty LGB servicemembers risk discharge every time they reach out an even so much as speak to their partners on the phone or send them an email.

America has moved on. America increasingly recognizes gay people are family too. Just yesterday Illinois passed a civil unions bill that will soon be signed into law, affording the LGBT families of Illinois a measure of legal recognition and the protection of the state on some of their interests.

It matters. Admiral Mike Mullen gets that. I was so pleased to see him engage passionately with McCain and Graham, defending the dignity of his LGB soldiers, and as he himself said, the integrity of the armed forces itself. He's also conceded the military, which a proud tradition of leading on social issues, is "clearly not leading" on this one. He wants to play to catch up, the Senate needs to let him.

"We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work."--Admiral Mike Mullen.

Photos courtesy of Jo Ann Santangelo, from her new book, Proud to Serve portraits of LGBT servicemembers. A great Christmas gift, available for $50 here.

Press Release Reactions to DADT Repeal Hearing

Popping them up as they come in...

Servicemembers United

Hearing Reaffirms Validity of Comprehensive Review on DADT Repeal

Debate Over Repeal Remains Settled as Pentagon Backs Lame Duck Action on NDAA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12/02/2010

Contact:

Jarrod Chlapowski: 252.721.8152 | Email: jchlapowski@servicemembersunited.org

Alex Nicholson: 202.531.4839 | Email: anicholson@servicemembersunited.org

(BOTH PRESENT AT HEARING AND AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEWS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, issued the following statement regarding today's hearing on the final report of the Comprehensive Review Working Group on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

"The Pentagon's top leaders have now fully endorsed the findings and recommendations that resulted from this extremely fair and thorough review, and it is now time for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility and debate the defense authorization bill," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "Servicemembers United was the most vocal organization criticizing the comprehensive review's surveys as biased against gays and lesbians, and the results were still overwhelmingly in our favor even with these biases. The debate is now settled and those who continue to obstruct are acting in bad faith from here on out."

During the course of the review, Servicemembers United met with the Working Group's co-chairs and staff several times and submitted numerous memoranda for the Working Group's consideration. Servicemembers United also arranged for the Working Group's co-chairs and staff to meet with a group of 30 gay and lesbian veterans and another group of 15 gay and lesbian military partnersduring the course of the review.

For more information about Servicemembers United and "Don't Ask, Dont' Tell," please visitwww.ServicemembersUnited.org. For the most comprehensive collection of polling data, discharge statistics, academic works, legislative and congressional material, and more, visitwww.DADTArchive.org.

###

Servicemembers United, a non-profit and non-partisan organization, is the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans and their allies. Based in Washington, DC, Servicemembers United actively engages in education and advocacy on issues affecting the gay military, veteran, and defense community.

--

More below the fold from SLDN and HRC.


SLDN

BREAKING: GATES, MULLEN, JOHNSON, HAM ALL PUSH BACK ON MCCAIN IN U.S. SENATE HEARING

ADMIRAL MULLEN: "I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor."

"John McCain's demeanor throughout the testimony of Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Ham and Mr. Johnson, was entirely dismissive bordering on disrespect. In the testimony, no one made a more powerful argument for repeal today than Admiral Mullen.  In a measured, methodical fashion, Admiral Mullen addressed and destroyed each one of McCain's irrational fears about open service. McCain continues to ignore the findings of the report that showed 92% of troops are fine working with gay service members," said Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

LIVE TWEETING FROM THE HEARING: @FreedomToServe

ABOUT SLDN:  SLDN was established in 1993 when "Don't Ask" originally passed.  In addition to working on repeal, SLDN offers free, confidential legal services to those impacted by DADT; this year the organization received its 10,000th call for assistance to its legal hotline.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 2, 2010

Trevor Thomas: (616) 430-2030 or trevor@sldn.org  

Paul DeMiglio: (202) 621-5408 or paul@sldn.org

SERVICE MEMBERS ATTENDING THE HEARING:

?         Former Specialist 4th Class Aubrey Sarvis, USA; served during the 1960s when homosexuality was still a criminal offense in the military.  He now serves as executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).  Sarvis is the former chief counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee and later served as executive vice president of Verizon Communications. MARKET: WASHINGTON, DC.  BOOKING: trevor@sldn.org

?         Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, USAF (Active Duty); a decorated aviator and was notified that his commander was seeking to discharge him under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in September 2008.  Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is only 10 months from reaching his 20-year retirement in September 2011.  Throughout his distinguished service he has attained nine Air Medals and currently works on desk duty at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho awaiting the results of more than two years of investigations and discharge proceedings. MARKET: WASHINGTON, DC. BOOKING: trevor@sldn.org

?         Former Major Mike Almy, USAF; a decorated service member who testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee about his discharge in 2006. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) ended today, he'd re-enlist tomorrow.  The military searched his personal emails while deployed in Iraq during a routine computer maintenance check.  Almy's command asked him his sexual orientation based on content from the emails.  Per the investigation, Almy made no statement of his homosexuality - even after being asked by his superiors.  He is one of six officers selected from the entire Air force to attend Professional Military Education at Quantico, Virginia.  Deployed to the Middle East four times.  In last deployment, I led a team of nearly 200 men and women to operate and maintain the systems used to control the air space over Iraq; the unit came under daily mortar attacks.  MARKET: WASHINGTON, DC / VIRGINIA. BOOKING: trevor@sldn.org

?         Former Captain Thomas T. Carpenter, USMC; a distinguished military graduate of the class of 1970 of the U.S. Naval Academy. After completing infantry training at The Basic School in 1971, he was assigned to the Naval Aviation Training Command and later designated a Naval Aviator.  While on active duty he accumulated over 2500 hours in the A-4 Skyhawk. Carpenter resigned his commission in 1976, at the rank of Captain and later joined the Marine Reserves.  From 1978 through 1983, Tom was a pilot for Continental Airlines, flying the Boeing 727. MARKET: LOS ANGELES, CA.  BOOKING: trevor@sldn.org

?         Former Captain Anthony Woods, USA; a graduate of West Point and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Woods deployed to Iraq twice as a platoon leader between 2004 and 2006 where he earned the Bronze Star for his service.  In 2008, Anthony informed his chain of command he wanted to continue serving in the military but no longer intended to abide by the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  After a six-month investigation, Anthony was discharged from the military in December of 2008 for violating the law. Since then, Anthony has run for an open U.S. House seat in a special election from his home district in California. MARKET: WASHINGTON, DC / VIRGINIA. BOOKING: trevor@sldn.org

?         Former Air Force Staff Sergeant David Hall, USAF; a decorated service member who served five years enlisted in the United States Air Force. He was selected as a Distinguished Graduate from Airman Leadership School before he attended AFROTC at the University of Alaska, Anchorage.  He was dis-enrolled from AFROTC after a female cadet went to his commander and told them he was gay.  Hall was ranked first in his class and had received a pilot slot when he was discharged in August 2002.  MARKET: WASHINGTON, DC. Booking: trevor@sldn.org

KEY PENTAGON REPORT POINTS:

?         When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit's "ability to work together" was "very good," "good," or "neither good nor poor."

o    89% for those in ARMY combat arms units and 84% for those in MARINE combat arms units.

?         When asked about how having a service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit's ability to "work together to get the job done," 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

?         When asked "in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you believed to be homosexual," 69% of Service members reported that they had.

?         In communications with gay and lesbian current and former service members, the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) repeatedly heard a patriotic desire to serve and defend the Nation, subject to the same rules as everyone else.

?         The CRWG is convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war.  They do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in the law, but neither should we underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated Service men and women to adapt to such change and continue to provide our Nation with the military capability to accomplish any mission.

?         The CRWG found "the risk of repeal of don't ask, don't tell to overall military effectiveness is low."

?         The CRWG believes this to be the "largest, most Comprehensive review of a personnel policy matter which the department of defense has ever undertaken."

UPDATED LIST: KEY SENATORS WHO NEED TO HEAR FROM REPEAL SUPPORTERS NOW:

--Susan Collins (R-ME);

--Olympia Snowe (R-ME);

--Mark Pryor (D-AR.);

--Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

--Richard Lugar (R-IN);

--Judd Gregg (R-NH);

--Scott Brown (R-MA)

--George Voinovich (R-OH);

--Kit Bond (R-MO);

--Joe Manchin (D-WV)

--Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

--Mark Kirk (R-IL)

--James Webb (D-VA)

ACTION ALERT BY REPEAL ADVOCATES: http://bit.ly/dBKRcd

##

SLDN FREE HOTLINE: Gay and lesbian service members with questions on repeal are urged to contact the SLDN hotline to speak with a staff attorney: 202-328-3244 x100.

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.

30

HRC

Military Leaders Make Ironclad Case for DADT Repeal

High-level military testimony confirms end to gay ban comes with few hurdles to implementation

WASHINGTON - Speaking today before a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, senior uniformed and civilian military leaders made an ironclad case for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal adding further momentum to action in this Congress, said the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization.  Testifying on the Pentagon's Comprehensive Working Group report on implementation of DADT repeal, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, General Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson all made clear that there are few hurdles to implementation of open service by gays and lesbians and that they were confident that the military would execute such a repeal without long-term consequences.  HRC President Joe Solmonese released the following statement:

"Senators said they wanted to hear from military leaders and now they have their answers.  The highest ranks of the Pentagon made clear that repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will allow every qualified man and woman to serve without sacrificing the high standards that have made our military great.  The small handful of Senators blocking repeal no longer have any fig leaves behind which to hide.

"America's men and women in uniform are professionals who already serve with gays and lesbians and repeal will do nothing to change their dedication to protecting our nation.  The working group found clearly that military effectiveness will not be compromised by removing this stain on our service members' integrity.

"After more than twenty studies from both the military and outside organizations, it is time for this debate to close.  Further, a failure of Congress to act now will tie the hands of military leaders who have asked for the power to implement the changes that their research lays out.  The time for repeal is now."

The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

# # #

Live 9AM ET: PHB coverage of Senate debate on DADT

The Blend welcomes Sue Fulton and JD Smith as commentators who will liveblog the Senate debate involving DADT repeal. They will be here today and tomorrow.

The URL for the CoverItLive console is http://tinyurl.com/phbdadt.  

Sue Fulton is the Chair of Knights Out - 1980 graduate of West Point, former Army Captain and company commander.

JD Smith is the active duty co-director of OutServe. A graduate of a U.S. service academy. "JD Smith" is a pseudonym since he is currently an active-duty officer.

Note: Comments will be disabled in CoverItLive, but readers are welcome to use this blog entry to post your thoughts/reactions. If you want to see what people are tweeting about DADT, we've included that stream on the right.

Video feed is here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4651

It is also below the fold so you can watch and comment.

The dangers of anti-gay propaganda - A personal story

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

In continuing to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center's designation and profiling new anti-gay hate groups, the lgbt community needs to demonstrate just what harm these group commit with their lie. Here is a little bit of my story:

As an African-American, I was constantly inundated with positive reinforcements while growing up.

I attended schools which celebrated Black History Month when it was Black History Week and Dr. King's birthday long before it became a national holiday.

I was constantly assured that my racial heritage was an asset rather than a liability and it was something which I should be proud of.

It wasn't the same with my sexual orientation.

Instead of positive reinforcements, I was bombarded with vague, negative statements regarding the "sinfulness" or the "danger" of my supposed lifestyle. This confused me because at the time, my life consisted of going to my college classes, studying, or socializing with friends. I hadn't done anything which could have been construed as a "lifestyle," gay or otherwise.

What made it worse were the claims about gay men and sex, or gay men and child molestation, or the supposed automatic connection between gay men and death by AIDS.

And a lot of these claims were emanating from these so-called Christian groups now declared as anti-gay hate groups.

I remember a time in particular when I was reading a magazine at my university's library. The article in question was about gay rights and one of the interviewees was a wife and mother who talked about God, her country, and her children.

She made it a point to talk about how she would protect her children from the "homosexual lifestyle," making sure to list a number of "studies" and "talking points" about the dangers of homosexuality to back her up.

In a later moment of lucidity, I discovered that she received her claims from the Family Research Council.

Bear in mind that I said a later moment of lucidity. At the time which I read the article, I wasn't lucid. In fact, I was downright upset and almost moved to tears because a certain reality struck me in the face.

Here was a woman who considered herself a mother and a Christian and though she didn't know me, she considered me as an outsider, a threat to not only her family, but the notion of family in general. And not because of what I had or hadn't done, but because of what some group, which clearly exploited her religious beliefs and fears, told her I was.

The last time I was ever that upset was in the ninth grade when some ignorant fool called me a "stupid n - - - er."

Because of the positive reinforcement I received as an African-American, I quickly got over being called that racial slur. Unfortunately, it took me some time to get over being thought of as an "oversexed, diseased pedophile."

All of us try to get through life the best we can, hoping to be successful and leave some type of positive legacy. But you can't do any of that when your self-esteem is crippled.

You see that's the problem with the so-called information put out by organizations like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the American Family Association. The information is not factually based nor does it serve to properly educate the American public but rather to shock and scare them.

It's also designed to cut the lgbt community off at the knees, to psychologically strip us of our self-worth and dignity, thereby creating a type of self-actualizing dichotomy in which we have no other recourse (because these same groups also attack credible information pertaining to the gay community) but to be the monsters they predicted us to be.

Let's be honest about what's going on here. These statements, talking points, and "studies" about the lgbt community put out by groups like the Family Research Council are lies and nothing more. They are no more valid than a racist group distorting FBI statistics to claim that black men are more violent than white men or distorting CDC statistics to claim that AIDS in the black community is indicative of African-American inferiority.

But what makes religious right lies even more insidious is that they are done in the name of God.

The groups peddling these lies whine about "deeply held Christian beliefs" regarding homosexuality. But what about the Christian beliefs regarding lying or bearing false witness?

Just where in the Bible did Jesus say "Obey ye the word of God unless you are talking about homosexuals. In that case, then go forth and lie with impunity."

Mr. LePage Goes To Washington

We in Maine are just so damned proud of our new governor-elect, who squeaked in was swept into office with a 38% mandate from the people!

(Thanks, Eliot... don't let the airport door on your return flight to DC or China hit ya in the backside!)

[image error]Anyways. This is what we got for awhile- a dancing bear and buffoon for a governor. So imagine how the local media is talking up LePage's meeting with President Obama today!

Portland Press Herald's headline:

LePage to say hello to Obama at meeting

The governor-elect regrets his 'go to hell' remark from the campaign, but says his position hasn't changed.

Bangor Daily News ran an AP story rather than their own:

After harsh words, Gov.-elect LePage looking forward to meeting Obama

One does wonder, however, if the LePages will be asking President Obama if they can borrow the Lincoln Bedroom for some x-rated celebration time!

WHERE WOULD LEPAGE CELEBRATE?

During an appearance on "Road to the Blaine House with Mal Leary," LePage was asked where he and his wife will go to celebrate if he wins Tuesday.

LePage paused, smiled and then said: "It's X-rated!"

Both men laughed, and Leary said, "Well, let's talk about the part that's not X-rated."

LePage said his election night party will be in Waterville.

"We'll celebrate in Waterville with our supporters and our friends," he said.

GAH. And the man STILL managed to win!

[image error]And media-shy LePage has been very, very careful as to who does get to talk with him and who does not. What a surprise, eh? Not a single out-of-state media outlet has been allowed anywhere NEAR LePage.

This administration is gonna be just GOLD for pundits... Much more to follow.