Because (as many of you know) I did some work on the 3 LGBT-specific ballot initiative campaigns last November in Maine, Washington State, and Kalamazoo, MI, some of my friends and colleagues have been asking what's on the ballot this fall that directly impacts LGBT people. I checked around and fortunately, there's little in the way of domestic partnership ordinances, constitutional amendments, non-discrimination ordinances, and so forth (with the exception of this inclusive non-discrmination ordinance in Bowling Green, OH).
But I've been meaning to do a piece on what is at stake, because there is a lot in terms of candidates that affect the trajectory of LGBT rights. There are multiple important contests, but from where I stand, key races include:
Steve Pougnet, who I've written about a great deal here before- the Mayor of Palm Springs, California, who besides being a strong progressive, would be the first openly gay married dad elected to Congress (he and his partner have two adorable young children). He's also running against the odious Mary Bono Mack, whose veneer of moderation was finally shredded by her vote against DADT repeal, refusal to take a stance on Prop 8, refusal to co-sponsor or commit to voting for repeal of DOMA and passage of ENDA.
Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, as I've written about (for some background) here and here at C&L, were one of just 14 Senators to oppose DOMA and are outspoken advocates on LGBT rights generally, going back to Boxer's work on HIV/AIDS funding in the early 1980s when few in Congress would touch what was then called "gay cancer".
New York State Senate races, where in my home state we fell 8 votes short of enshrining equality for same-sex couples last winter. Among the 8 "no" votes, two have fallen in Democratic primaries to pro-equality Assemblymen, and there are multiple other general election races coming up where we would pick up pro-equality votes or defend them. My colleague Paul at Gay City News has a great summary here.
Four gubernatorial races, the first being in California, as the winner there may serious impact in terms of whether the case has "standing" at the 9th Circuit- an issue that could bring the whole case down. The other three are states where it is very likely that equality supporters have the votes to enact major legislation- the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Rhode Island and Minnesota, and the recently-vetoed civil unions law in Hawaii. The latter two are where especially strong progressives Mark Dayton and Neil Abercrombie are the Democratic nominees.
Update: One state I've missed was Maine, where Libby Mitchell is the Democratic nominee and the opponent most likely to win if anyone but her does is terrible on LGBT equality. Since a new marriage bill would need to re-pass the Legislature and be signed again by the governor in light of last November's election, Libby's race is just as crucial.
And finally is Kamala Harris (who I especially want to highlight), who is running for Attorney General of California and, along with Eric Schneiderman in my home state of New York, is one of two extremely strong, die-hard progressive Attorney General candidates to run this year.
Aside from hearing excellent things about Kamala from folks I trust over at Calitics and in various California progressive circles, I first was introduced to and wrote about Kamala over at Prop 8 Trial Tracker, a blog I sometimes guest on, when she and Stephanie Miller appeared in a CNN debate on same-sex marriage around the Prop 8 decision news (videos can be found in this post). What impressed me so much is how Kamala gets it as a straight ally- understands how to talk about equality, fundamental fairness, and what the law really says. She came at it like a seasoned pro who had been doing LGBT advocacy for years. There are a million people who could have taken her spot in that debate, and there are few I would have traded for Kamala.
Brave New Films, in partnership with PowerPAC, put together this great video below summarizing Kamala's commitment to equality and why her race is so important. Check it out.
I've noticed that the first response to any kind of institution with which people have an economic relationship doing someone they don't like is to automatically call for a "boycott", "buycott", or something similar. Sometimes it works, many times it doesn't.
Karen Ocamb over at LGBTPOV spoke to Donald Bentz with Equality Hawaii, examining that question in the wake of Gov. Lingle's outrageous veto last night that would have legalized civil unions for same-sex partners:
As for a boycott of Hawaii, Bentz said he understands the inclination but it poses a "quandary" for a lot of businesses in the tourism industry. Last April, the right-wing-lead executive committee of a business roundtable sent a letter to the governor urging her to veto the civil unions bill. Bentz said the full membership didn't know the letter was being sent - and it forced them to take a stand, which many did, calling for full marriage equality. A boycott, Bentz said, would hurt those businesses - the airlines and hotels with progressive policies. Bentz said Equality Hawaii will have to discuss how to proceed with other LGBT groups and allies after they cool down and can "think logically." They may consider a "buycott" which directs LGBT spending to specific businesses with good LGBT policies, and an implicit "boycott" everything else.
"Right now we are all raw emotions," he said. "This is really difficult. There is a lot of anger. We know people on the mainland are already calling for a boycott. So do we get behind that? How do we want our friends and allies on the mainland to know where we want to be?"
This harkens back to the widely cited Colorado boycott after the passage of Amendment 2 in 1992, which banned state and local municipalities from enacting laws protecting "homosexual" individuals as a protected class (eventually overturned in the Romer v. Evans SCOTUS case). The resulting boycott, according to Director Terry Schleder, led to over 60 companies canceling conventions or meetings in the state, 20 U.S. municipalities severing ties, New York City divesting stock holding in Colorado-based companies, companies canceling their planned relocation of headquarters to the state, etc. There was a clear economic impact. On the other hand, there was also a significant increase in violence and a backlash against the LGBT community.
I think taking a minute and figuring out the best theory of change to achieve a smart response on this, as Donald suggests, is indeed the most important thing. Many of the companies which would be hurt by this, according to Don as he told Karen, stood up for the civil unions bill, as did many of their employees. In my view, the strongest amount of resources should be directed at electing Neil Abercrombie as governor. The problem here is a lack of support and veto by the governor, not by legislators or Hawaii residents (which, according to polling, support the bill at an 80% clip). The two situations with respect to Amendment 2 and this one, and what's the appropriate response, aren't parallel. The most immediate opportunity for change comes in November, here. Our side needs to elect a pro-equality governor and maintain support in the legislature to win on this next year, and those should be the first priorities- partly because they directly affect the problem, and partly because they are the most immediate opportunities to effect change. Efforts outside of that have to reward, or hurt as little as possible, supporters of the bill, while extracting a message and punishment for those who went the wrong way- as well as communicate the results of successful efforts to legislators.
NBC's The Today Show is holding a "Modern Day Wedding Contest"- but only making applications open to opposite-sex couples. NBC says it is because the wedding will take place in New York State, which does not allow same-sex couples to marry.
Unfortunately, this argument overlooks two important facts: First, many same-sex couples have their wedding celebration in states that do not offer the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, while legally marrying out-of-state. My best friend was wed last fall in Virginia, of all places, because that's where her closest friends were and her fiance's family lived nearest. But they then took a honeymoon to Vermont, where they also tied the knot legally. There's no reason the same could not happen for couples who wish to do so in New York State, particularly because four surrounding states- Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut- all same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
Second, New York State, courtesy of an executive action by Gov. Paterson, recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who wed out of state. So it's even likely we're talking about NYS couples who wish to celebrate and reside in the state. There's no reason they should be treated any differently.
Change.org and GLAAD have a petition to NBC that sent 2,600 e-mails so far to NBC executives. Via Towleroad, NBC responded positively:
Two things you can do to help:
1) Sign the Change.org petition, which will send an e-mail to NBC executives, urging them to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Unbelievable. Jeremy Hooper has audio of the press conference. The House had passed the bill 31-20 and the Senate 18-7, but action on this will have to wait until the 2011 legislative session as legislative leaders have stated they will not go into special session to attempt a veto override. My deepest sympathies for couples in the state, and those who worked hard on this.
More background on the mess to get this bill through the Legislature is here. For some reason, it took Lingle weeks and weeks to make up her mind to not even be able to get to a place of basic fairness for same-sex couples. I'm putting highlight quotes in the extended entry (h/t Rex Wockner), as some of them make my blood boil so much this post would take up another page to respond.
In response, the ACLU and Lambda Legal are preparing to file a lawsuit.
We've been writing a lot about civilian control of the military around DADT and the McChrystal thing here recently. In an interview with Gay City News, Rep. Anthony Weiner hits on exactly what I'm feeling with regard to the military's performance around DADT:
The congressman also cited the public discourse that ensued when the White House announced last month it had struck a compromise for allowing the House and Senate to adopt a plan for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell even though a Pentagon Working Group has not yet completed its study of how to implement such a policy change. A day after the compromise was made public, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced their grudging acceptance of Congress' intentions, but some of the individual service chiefs offered dissents.
"Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent a letter three days before the fucking vote, and you're the president of the United States," Weiner said. "That's insubordination. There was one hand clapping. It would be akin to the president of the United States announcing he supports school vouchers and the secretary of Education sending a letter three days before the vote to say, 'Oh no, don't do that.'"
Exactly right. I am glad Obama did the right thing and reasserted his authority as Commander in Chief this week. It's something I hope the Administration will move to do in the future on other issues when those who report to him end up contradicting him before Congress.
Weiner also gets at what many, I think, in the LGBT community find fault with the Administration over, which is a lack of leadership.
Weiner, who was a persistent critic of the administration for not pushing harder for a public option in the healthcare reform legislation enacted earlier this year, said Obama is too often reluctant to lead on critical issues.
"I think the president wants to do the right thing, but I think there is too much of a tendency in this administration to leave it to the legislators to do the right thing," he said. "The president talks about using political capital to get things done, but he's asking Congress to get it done."
Weiner noted the success two weeks earlier in winning Senate Armed Services Committee and full House approval of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromise, but also argued that moving the broader LGBT agenda will require assertive presidential leadership.
"We're in a good moment now, so I don't want to piss on anything," he said. "I will say that there is this general sense out there that he is not prepared to lead in the classic sense. He says, 'Okay, there are 218 votes, I'll sign it.' This is one of those issues that you need leadership on."
To quote our President and one of his favorite phrases, let me be clear with some caveats: I don't expect the Administration to be shouting from the rooftops on LGBT issues all the time. And if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't spend political capital on something that has no freaking chance of going anywhere, nor (as I wrote here) is it always possible to know when the Administration is working on your issue or not. But I haven't seen the President publicly or privately lift a finger on ENDA at all, which has been very close to passage all year, and not on DADT after his SOTU speech to the point of his Administration, via Gates, Mullen and the gang, actually being detrimental (until the last minute when it became clear they might be rebuked in the Senate Armed Services Committee on holding a vote, so they cut a deal). If we saw 1/20th of the leadership from the Administration on those issues that we did on, say, health care reform, maybe ENDA wouldn't be dead and DADT repeal (such as it is, anyway) been within a hair's breadth of going down at the helm.
There are many reasons the Administration is extremely pro-LGBT in many respects and still gets roundly trashed (rightly or wrongly). But one of the biggest ones I would say is this. Leadership.
WASHINGTON - President Obama will soon expand the rights of gay workers by allowing them to take family and medical leave to care for sick or newborn children of same-sex partners, administration officials said Monday.
The policy will be set forth in a ruling to be issued Wednesday by the Labor Department's wage and hour division, the officials said.
Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or for a spouse, son or daughter with "a serious health condition."
The new ruling indicates that an employee in a same-sex relationship can qualify for leave to care for the child of his or her partner, even if the worker has not legally adopted the child.
The ruling, in a formal opinion letter, tackles a question not explicitly addressed in the 1993 law. It is one of many actions taken by the Obama administration to respond to the concerns of gay men and lesbians within the constraints of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
[...]
Jennifer W. Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, another advocacy group, estimated that one million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families were raising two million children.
The upshot of the Labor Department policy, she said, is that "if you act like a parent, do the work of a parent and raise a child like a parent, then you are a parent for the purpose of the Family and Medical Leave Act."
Federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships. But Labor Department lawyers have concluded that people in such relationships may nevertheless qualify for family and medical leave when they act as parents, sharing the care and support of a child.
According to Chris at Metro Weekly, the change would even include individuals who have no legal relationship to his or her partner's child because of state law.
The administration has taken lots of what seem like "small" actions that really do impact lots of people, most notably on expanding some benefits for federal workers last summer. A lot of folks around the LGBT-focused blogosphere have scoffed at what they refer to as "crumbs"- the latest from Pam here- a response I really don't get. One always has to have an alternative when leveling criticism. What would the alternative be? Does someone have the votes to repeal DOMA in their pocket? Sure, I'd like to see the Administration do more lifting on our issues, and goodness knows I've lambasted them for being terrible on DADT, Rick Warren, and more. But DOMA repeal is quite a ways away, and no amount of cajoling from Obama is going to get us there in the immediate near term. So in the absence of that, let's have a change that will help a lot of families, and good on those who worked on this in the Administration for making the effort.
I have one friend who stands to get health insurance through his partner at Commerce with the new changes. I know two other couples who could really have used Family and Medical Leave- one to care care of their newborn daughter, and another to take care of her partner during a fight with breast cancer. Many companies already offer these benefits, but remember that not everyone works for some LGBT-friendly Fortune 500 company, state college system or university.
Positive change doesn't have to come through 218 votes in the House, 60 in the Senate and a Presidential signature. Somewhere there are gay couples cheering this. I don't doubt this was timed to coincide with the Administration's Pride reception today at the White House, and I am curious why it took a year and a half to make the change, but it's still good to see it anyway.
This morning, the HHS Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is considering revising the ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men. Yesterday, OpenLeft and over a dozen other LGBT and allied blogs and bloggers asked you, our readers, to submit a public comment in support of revising the ban.
This morning, I wanted to share with you two things: one is the live streaming video of the committee hearing. Lori Knowles from the University of Alberta is currently giving an amazing presentation on how the policy stigmatizes all gay men as diseased and a threat to society, that AIDS is a gay male disease, and that the AIDS test is unreliable.
Next up at approximately 10:00 AM, Gay Men's Health Crisis, an organization with which I've been working on this issue and a group that eventually became the first major organization to help those living with HIV/AIDS back in the early 1980s, will be presenting a case for revising the ban for about half an hour or so. If you'd like to see experts make a case on why the ban should be revised, I urge you to watch. It really is a fascinating discussion. Later this morning at 11:05 AM EST, there will be an open public comment period. You can view the live streaming video and the agenda for the rest of the day here.
Second, I want to share something with you. A number of people felt inspired by the call to action yesterday and forwarded me the letters they submitted to Dr. Jerry Holmberg, the Executive Secretary of the Committee tasked with accepting public comments. With his permission, I've republished a letter in the extended entry from Tim Kerr below (which is where the title of this post comes from), who read about our blogswarm on Pam's House Blend and Joe.My.God and took action. I'll be sharing a few more throughout the day.
Please read Tim's letter and if you have not already done so, please submit a public comment to jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov, and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation's health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. You can view talking points and a form letter for your convenience in my post here.
Thanks for taking action.
Dr. Holmberg:
Thankfully I haven't yet needed a blood transfusion (knock on wood), but I have been personally affected by the ban on blood donation by gay men and I'd like to share with you how.
I've always been active in my community and worked hard to try to improve the world around me in ways both large and small, for example by representing indigent clients in the courtroom and administrative hearings, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or just helping someone with a baby carriage down the steps of the subway or through a door. In high school and college, once I was old enough, I gave blood during every blood drive, wore my stickers proudly, and guilted those around me into doing the same. I gave blood even when there was no blood drive going at school. This was the natural thing for me to do. It's how I try to live my life. But I haven't been allowed to give blood for over a decade now, and I've never truly understood why.
Today, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is kicking off a two-day meeting to reconsider the FDA ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men (MSM). The current policy has been in place since 1985 when no HIV testing was available and little was known about HIV/AIDS. Since then, while many policies towards blood donations have changed, and HIV testing has significantly advanced to the point where a permanent ban no longer makes sense, the ban still remains in place. The ban is also discriminatory in that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men because it does not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk MSM, banning potential MSM donors who are HIV-negative and consistently practice safe sex or are in long-term monogamous relationships, while others with a significantly higher risk of HIV infection are subject to less restrictive deferrals or none at all. The ban also contributes to a dangerously and chronically low blood supply in a country in which approximately just 5% of all eligible donors give.
The NYC and DC City Councils have recently passed resolutions by votes of 42-1 and 13-0, respectively, urging a revision of the ban. Sen. Kerry and 17 other Democratic Senators urged the same in a letter to the FDA. Today, we are asking that you join their voices in calling for a more sensible policy.
Dr. Jerry Holmberg is the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee, and is tasked with accepting formal public comments from both organizations and individuals. He has made his e-mail available for this purpose. Please take a minute to e-mail Dr. Holmberg via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov and urge him and the committee to revise the ban on blood donations from MSM.
Similar to our "Release your anger!" action aimed at the FDIC on a financial penalty for banks taking excessive risks, there is an open public comment period in which the committee considers outside opinions- and an opportunity for supporters of a sensible policy to make a dent. In writing the note, you can use the facts we have listed below, a form letter we've put together at the bottom of this list post that summarizes the rationale for ending the ban, a personal note- or all of the above! My close friend was just diagnosed with a very serious type of leukemia. She has received half a dozen whole blood transfusions and several platelets transfusions. I am a healthy, HIV-negative, type O negative individual who has previously donated and who meets all additional critera for donating. I want to give, but this policy senselessly won't let me. I just e-mailed Dr. Holmberg with that message and other sound reasons.
Please take a minute to do the same, and drop Dr. Holmberg and the Committee an e-mail at jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov. Urge a revision of the policy that incorporates sound medical, scientific, and non-discriminatory guidelines.
The additional reasons you can cite are below.
Newer tests have shortened the window period in which HIV is undetectable to between 9 and 11 days. A permanent, lifetime ban is outdated and no longer makes sense.
The U.S. blood supply is frequently at critically low levels. Less than 5% of all eligible donors give, while donation recipients include mothers delivering babies, trauma victims, cancer patients, transplant patients and others. The respected Williams Institute estimates that lifting the ban would result in an estimated 130,150 additional donors who are likely to donate 219,000 additional pints of blood each year, while shortening deferral to one year would result in 53,269 additional men who are likely to donate 89,716 pints each year.
The ban is a form of discrimination by unfairly targeting men who have sex with men, or effectively the gay and bisexual community. A permanent, blanket ban is instituted on any male who has had sex with another male even once since 1977 and without regard for his partner's HIV status nor for frequency, safe sex practices, or duration since. Yet if one has sex with an opposite-sex partner who is knowingly HIV-positive, he or she can give again in a year. This is discrimination and it is wrong.
Other countries like Australia, Japan, Sweden and Russia have either revised or completely lifted the deferral period, while Italy, Spain and France screen donors based on risk rather than a blanket ban on a community.
The American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, American Association of Blood Banks, American Medical Association, and a coalition of nearly fifty other organizations all support a revision of the ban.
You can use these reasons in combination with your own personal ones, or the form letter in the extended entry. Please submit a public comment via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov, and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation's health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. Thanks for helping improve the nation's health and eliminating another form of discrimination.
Yesterday, the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee voted down GENDA, which would have added gender identity to the state's anti-discrimination statutes. Sexual orientation is already protected as a basis for discrimination. The vote was 11 in favor and 12 against, with every Democrat except resident homophobe Ruben Diaz in support and every Republican against.
In examining what happened and checking in with folks on the ground, I've noticed a few striking parallels that exacerbate my frustration with both New York State politics as well as the pro-equality leaders in my home state.
Once again, there was either a rampant case of Democratic leadership wrongly assuming they had the votes, or Republicans lying straight-up, or both. Either way, it's not a good sign. For background, see here for more of my thoughts on how we could have lost the marriage vote by an embarrassing 24-32. There are a lot of echoes of that yesterday, as we went into the vote knowing we needed a Republican. Sen. Lanza from Staten Island actually voted yes before Diaz shouted at him, at which point he actually changed his vote to no. Seriously. Sen. Maziarz was a possibility, but also voted no. The question remains whether or not it was presumed Lanza was in hand when he was not, and also why to hold the vote at all instead of waiting to shore up support.
I say "shore up support" because if you read the transcript of the committee vote, (h/t Jillian Weiss) there was actually confusion over what the bill would actually do. Part of that is because our supporters fielded, as Jill rightly put it, a "B-team". Sen. Savino, who made very strong arguments during the marriage debate, was not very good yesterday, almost casually trivializing arguments in opposition to the bill instead of taking them head-on. Even the legislative counsel in support of the bill could not adequately explain how "gender identity" was defined in the bill nor what it meant in terms of the workplace for the purposes of restrooms and so forth, despite the Assembly having voted on this and passed it twice already, just like it did on- wait for it- the marriage equality bill. Most shocking of all, the bill's own freaking sponsor and the only openly gay member of the body, Sen. Tom Duane, did not even show up. If you take Sen. Lanza as a gettable vote for the bill- and I do- it was clear from the transcript his clearly stated concerns were not answered at all.
Part of that is because of the once again less-than-noteworthy performance of Sen. Duane. This is the same State Senator who said four separate times in five months some variation of "I have the votes" in reference to the marriage bill, only to fall flat by several, which led to zero Republican support for the bill when it was clear it was going to fail. This is also the same State Senator who cracked jokes on the floor during debate on the marriage bill instead of giving a heart-wrenching oration that might have won over the last few. Now it's the same State Senator who was the lead sponsor of the bill yet couldn't actually manage to show up to debate yesterday, leaving committee members after the vote actually wondering out loud where he was.
Disagreement over tactics. With the marriage bill, there was a strong disagreement among advocates- behind the scenes with colleagues of mine, as well as openly between Empire State Pride Agenda and Sen. Duane, on whether to hold a vote. Similar was true here. In New York State, the committee system can be bypassed and bills are often brought directly to the Rules Committee and then straight to the floor. While Housing Works, a lead advocate, reported the other week that 32 votes existed on the floor for passage, the bill sat in a hostile committee for weeks, then at the last minute moved by the conference leader, Sen. Sampson, to the committee he himself chairs, and still could not pass. Duane, the lead sponsor, blames that process as being a key reason for the bill's failure. From NY Daily News:
Duane attributed the defeat partly to a difference of opinions on legislative strategy.
"it is now yet again confirmed that the Senate is a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia," said Duane, who is openly gay. "The advocates wanted to go through a committee... I believe that we should have brought GENDA through Rules and brought it right to the floor so as to deny the right-wing fringe the ability to organize against GENDA with their lies and distortions."
Housing Works said the same. It's distressing to so often see advocates inside and outside the chamber who are not on the same page, and that this route was chosen and ended at failure. And it once against cost the LGBT community.
Sometimes it is hard to tell which is more depressing, the ineffective pro-equality leadership in New York State, or not having pro-equality votes. Probably the former, because if someone like Pelosi were running the show, she would be able to marshal the latter who were gettable. I do know that it is embarrassing to lose like this on two major LGBT bills in the same cycle, and to have wasted a rare opportunity of a pro-equality Assembly and governor along with a Democratic Senate that was willing to move bills previously stuck.
Yesterday I wrote about Rep. Dave Reichert's effort to have it both ways on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, using the excuse that he really wanted to vote for repeal but then set up a false argument that voting for repeal somehow wouldn't take into account the opinions of "the generals in command", despite everyone bending over backwards to make sure those are exactly the opinions taken into account.
Today is the newest lame excuse, from GOProud, a gay Republican group- that newly elected Rep. Charles Djou (R-HI) voted for repeal, so his reason shouldn't matter. So what exactly was his reason?
DJOU: On that particular issue, it comes from personal experience. I have served for nearly 10 years now in the United States Army Reserve. What concerned me about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is that it just simply doesn't work.
Sounds good so far, right? Wait, here's the rest:
And I have seen too many instances as an army reservist, soldiers would sign up for a re-enlistment bonus. Get this gigantic sum from the American taxpayer. And then as soon as the unit gets called up to mobilize to Iraq and Afghanistan, they suddenly claim they are gay, with no prior indication of that whatsoever. Get the discharge and keep the bonus. That's wrong, that's unfair and that's why this policy should be changed.
Djou voted in favor of repeal to prevent servicemembers from gaming the system. Okay. Perhaps that's a serious problem, but it kind of makes me laugh when Jimmy LaSalvia with GOProud tells The Advocatethat none of that matters:
"The fact that any on the gay left would analyze why Charles Djou voted for DADT repeal, rather than the fact that he did, shows that they are more interested in affirmation and the group hug than actually delivering results for our community," he said.
Um, okay. Then don't expect any "group hugs" from the LGBT community for this guy. All of a sudden what members of Congress from D+11 districts in blue states tell the public on TV about why they support legislation doesn't matter at all? I know LaSalvia was just happy to avoid embarrassment for his group supporting Djou in the special election- and frankly, was probably desperate to be able to count the number of, using his definition, "pro-gay" Republican members of the House on more than just his fingers- but get real. Votes are votes, but with some members, there's a higher yardstick to earn support.
From Day One, when the Administration announced this Pentagon review, word all over Capitol Hill when our side did lobby days was that this or that member would not commit to review because they wanted to wait to see what the Pentagon review said. The review essentially gave cover to those who either opposed repeal but didn't want to say so, or supported it but did not want to take a vote on it, by allowing them to say they wanted to "follow the process", refusing to take a position. It eventually became a serious roadblock towards repeal because of the timeline around it. It's a bad excuse no one should fall for, because lots of people in elected office had positions on the merits of repeal before the review was announced, so there is no good reason that all of a sudden you have no opinion, or your previous opinion evaporated, just because there's a review. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, for example, even sits on the Armed Services Committee and could not bring himself to take a position all year long. I even asked him directly in a liveblog at Blue Indiana and he ignored the question (though eventually voted yes).
Congressmen Reichert can't have it both ways. After getting blasted by bloggers, Equal Rights Washington, and his opponent Susan DelBene, Reichert issued the following statement in an attempt to back peddle from his clearly inexcusable no vote on an Amendment that could lead to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"Let me be clear: I am not suggesting homosexuals should not be able to serve openly in the military. One of the greatest duties of this Congress is to protect the freedoms and liberties of all Americans. I hope we can all agree that it is unjust to deny people the right to pursue the American Dream and realize success and opportunity in the workplace. That's why I've supported legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. However, I believe policy decisions affecting the military must reflect the input, perspectives, and judgment of the generals in command, and a decision on this issue must be entrusted to them. We must continue to support the men and women who are risking their lives each and every day and ensure that they have the best training and equipment available to carry out their duties."
Reichert is trying to have it both ways in terms of wanting to get LGBT community support. Since January, everyone has bent over backwards with the purpose of helping individuals like him are moderates or from tough districts have enough "cover" to get to a yes vote in favor of repeal, and he still can't do it. The President announces at the SOTU. Sec. Gates and Admiral Mullen testify in support. Colin Powell and even Dick Cheney (you read that right, Dick Cheney) come out in support. Last week's CNN poll put the public at 78% in support, a number that goes back, give or take a few points, for three years. Then a compromise is made to give the Pentagon review even higher attention and priority and to require the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to "certify" that this is essentially good for the country. Then a 60-day waiting period is added to the language, post-certification.
All of this, and Reichert still can't bring himself to vote for repeal? Please. Don't come 'round here saying you really wanted to vote for repeal but just couldn't bring yourself to do so after the entire world bends over backwards to give individuals like yourself all kinds of reasons to support repeal. The same goes for Jim Webb and anyone else using that excuse.
The House has passed the amendment sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy to begin repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell by a vote of 234-194. Five Repulicans voted in favor, while 26 Democrats voted against. The amendment repeals the statute on the books and also sets forth the certification process following the Pentagon review that I've described this week.
The House vote follows the vote to repeal the statute by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Later this summer there will be a full Senate vote, which despite McCain's threat to filibuster is fully expected to make cloture, as well as conference committee and the President's signature. But these two were the highest hurdles to clear, and it is big news that we have done so.
The fight is far from over, as supporters of repeal need to keep pressure on the Administration through next year, but as Tammy Baldwin said during House debate today, this is a step on the path towards full LGBT civil rights.
Just now, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to pass Lieberman-Levin amendment to begin repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell statute on the books. The vote was 16-12 with one Democrat (Webb) against and one Republican (Collins) for. The House is now expected to take up repeal via the Murphy amendment to the defense authorization bill.
A big, big step forward on the path of repeal, and one that looked increasingly unlikely several weeks ago after the Gates letter and then several swing Senators coming out against repeal. My deepest thanks to all of who made calls and asked constituents you know to do so as well. And kudos to all the pro-repeal organizations, bloggers, netroots activists, and other advocates out there who refused to concede defeat and push this through. After 17 years of this terrible policy, we are a giant step towards removing it from the books and ending unjust discrimination, saving taxpayers money, and making our military stronger.
Much has been made over David Cameron, head of the Tories in Britain, pushing a "compassionate conservative" theme and being more supportive of LGBT rights than his party has been in the past. I have doubts this played into the Tories' victory in this past election, but it's being noted by GOPers over here.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a bill Saturday that would have given same-sex partners the right to decide what to do with the body of their loved ones, should they die.
Pawlenty had said he would veto the bill, calling it unnecessary because partners can draw up a living will. But advocates argue that married couples do not have to do that and that legal documents often cost money to draft.
Pawlenty joins RI Gov. Carcieri, who also vetoed such a bill, in the CFA wing of his party (crazy fucking assholes). Apologies for the rhetoric, it's rare from me, but I cannot contemplate anyone who is either so bigoted or so politically craven to be elected President they would veto such a bill. Gay people have very few rights in life and even while grieving have few in death.
I wrote on Friday about Iowa and New Hampshire becoming interesting organizing grounds to pressure GOP Presidential candidates on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. While pigs are sooner to fly than any of them actually endorsing the freedom to marry, since they'll all now be in a race to pander to the CFA wing, it still represents an opportunity to make a difference among the Republican rank-and-file in forums, debates, and so forth. On this, it would be great to get a Minnesotan on TV who is screwed over by Pawlenty's pandering and make an issue of it for this asshole.
Times like these with moves like this and the Arizona bill that you wonder where the GOP is going.
STATE BLOGS
