<a href="http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2009/07/how-to-repeal-dadt.html">How to repeal DADT

June 05, 2009

Don't Ask Do Deal: 'outright lie'?

Posted by: Chris

Me thinks they doth protest too much, our friends at the Human Rights Campaign. Trevor Thomas has fired off an angry response by Blackberry to Jason Bellini's Daily Beast report alleging HRC cut a deal to delay pressing for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell until next year. Wrote Thomas:

This story is not only an outright lie, it is recklessly irresponsible. HRC never made such a deal and continues to work with congress and the administration on a full range of equality issues including a swift end to the military's shameful ban on gay servicemembers.

Considering that Bellini's claim to a go-slow deal on DADT was (a) sourced to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, and (b) confirmed on camera by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, thereby (c) confirming what Beltway gays have known for months, it appears that (d): HRC's Thomas, while using his Blackberry, was in fact talking out of a much lower extremity.

Technorati Tags: Chuck Schumer, Dailiy Beast, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, HRC, Jason Bellini, Tammy Baldwin, Trevor Thomas

Filed in: HRC , Media , Military , Obama

March 21, 2009

Introducing: The Omnibus Gay Rights Bill

Posted by: Andoni

Finally, someone has put together an Omnibus Gay Rights Bill.

Officially called the Equality & Religious Freedom Act Proposal (Omnibus Equality Bill, for short), it is the work of eQualityGiving.org, a group composed of LGBT major donors and activists.

Tired of the piecemeal approach for equal rights taken by our leadership over the past 15 (or more) years, eQualityGiving decided to put it all on the table. If the goal is LGBT equality, let's spell out exactly what that means at the federal level -- in one bill. This is a very comprehensive, very well thought out proposal that has been months in the making. It is more than just the sum of the parts of our current proposals before Congress.

There are the major pros and cons of this approach. Critics will say that this bill is DOA. There is no way Congress will do all this. We aren't equal, we aren't close to being equal and they simply won't do it. Besides, a bill that encompasses so many issues will be split up and sent to a dozen different Congressional committees based on legislative jurisdiction, where it will turn into mincemeat when finished .....if it ever survives any of the committees.

The pro side says that we need to show Congress what true equality really looks like for the LGBT community. When you spell out what true equality is, it is glaringly obvious that we are second class citizens at best and in many cases -- non citizens. At the least this proposal can be used as the gold standard, the measuring stick, against which all piecemeal legislation will be measured.

So after ENDA (the Employment Non Discrimination Act) is passed and everyone says, wow how great, we can point to the Equality Bill and say, OK, that's a little bit of what is necessary, but look at how much is still missing. I think that alone makes this bill worthwhile to have around.

A lot of work by a lot of smart and enthusiastic people went into crafting this proposed legislation. I think you should take a look at it to see how good it is. It addresses everything but marriage at the state level, which is not a federal issue.

Feel free to tell us what you think.

Full disclosure: I am a member of eQualityGiving.

Technorati Tags: DOMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ENDA, Equality & Religious Freedom Act, Omnibus Equality Bill, UAFA

Filed in: ENDA , Immigration , Marriage , Military

March 15, 2009

Prohibition and gay rights

Posted by: Andoni

History repeats itself. That is the theme in Frank Rich's wonderful Op Ed The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off in today's New York Times.

According to Rich, we are entering a new period where the public has again tired of the anti-science, let me impose my values on you crowd. After the major economic downturn we have experienced over the past year, the culture wars are a luxury we can no longer afford. The same sort of cultural reversal happened in 1933 during The Great Depression.

In the period leading up to the Depression fundamentalists pushed for Prohibition and anti-evolution legislation - succeeding on both counts. The Depression ended all that nonsense. In the period leading up to today's great recession, the fundamentalists peddled an anti-gay, anti-stem cell research agenda and also succeeded broadly.

Now history is repeating itself. Anti-stem cell research was reversed last week by President Obama with only a whimper from the religious right and public opinion is showing majority support on most of the crucial gay rights issues - employment, the military, and our relationships.

We need to take advantage of this moment in history. FDR demonstrated that a president can lead a nation to reform on cultural issues when the country's mood changes. Obama should follow that example. As the saying goes - it is his moment, it is his time.

Technorati Tags: family values, FDR, gay rights, Obama, Prohibition, stem cell research

Filed in: Current Affairs , Marriage , Military , Obama , Relationship , Science , Values

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

March 11, 2009

Send Congress a DADT Message

Posted by: Andoni

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Nathaniel Frank

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

When the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is gone and buried, Nathaniel Frank's new book "Unfriendly Fire, How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military" will be credited as having put the last nail in the coffin of this inane, discriminatory policy.

This is a wonderfully written scholarly work that conclusively proves that the gay ban actually weakens the military, rather than helps it.

In a fascinating program that the author has arranged with certain book stores, if you buy a copy of the book, a second copy will be offered to you at half price which will be sent to a US Congressman or Senator's office, to convince them (or their staff) that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" actually harms the military. Once all 535 members of Congress have received the book via this program, they will start sending copies to generals in the Pentagon.

Frank interviewed hundreds of people for this book, and one hopeful fact is that many people in the Pentagon now admit that they were wrong when they supported this policy 15 years ago. They now acknowledge that the policy was based solely on ignorance and prejudice.

If your local bookstore does not offer the special deal to send a second copy of the book to a member of Congress, our gay bookstore in Atlanta, Outwrite Bookstore and Coffehouse does, and they will be happy to help you. If for some reason you can't order online, their phone number is 404-607-0082.

Above is the clip from Frank's interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Monday night. Did you know that there is a "Queen for the Day" exception to the DADT policy? Watch the video and learn.

Technorati Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, Unfriendly Fire How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military

Filed in: Military

Comments (33)
TrackBack (0)

February 09, 2009

Should the military choose a felon over a gay guy?

Posted by: Andoni

"And to choose a felon over a combat-proven veteran on the basis of sexuality is defeatist. Ask any squad leader," counsels Owen West, a straight veteran in an Op Ed in today's New York Times. His piece lays out one of the best lines of reasoning I have seen on repealing the 'don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy enacted by Congress in 1993.

He advises Obama not to make repealing DADT into an argument about civil rights and equality, as President Clinton tried to do in 1993, but rather concentrate on helping the military and advance a line of evidence that repealing DADT is what's best for the military. He cites the example of after the integration of the military in 1948, during war time (the Korean War) even the generals acknowledged that recruiting across America's socio-economic specturm produced the best force.

I hope the White House reads this piece. Maybe we should send it to them.

Technorati Tags: DADT, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, gays in the military, Obama, repeal DADT

Filed in: Military , Obama

Comments (4)
TrackBack (0)

January 28, 2009

'Don't Ask' Sanchez, he has no clue

Posted by: Chris

You know that when Fox News publishes commentary opposing repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell by a Marine reservist who has a history in gay porn and prostitution that the result is going to be a fun read.

Matt Sanchez made headlines back in 2007 when his queer past surfaced after he had been feted by conservatives for whining about derogatory language he claims a couple of socialist students used against him at Columbia University. He later admitted to performing in a handful of XXX gay films in the early '90s under the names "Rod Majors" and "Pierre LeBranche."

Sanchez claims he was strictly gay-for-pay, though gay blogger Andy Towle has written about meeting Sanchez in a San Jose gay bar back in 1989, and the two subsequently went on several dates. Sanchez also acknowledged (after initial denials) that he was running gay adult massage ads in the New York Blade as late as 2004, the year after he joined the Marine reserves.

With that background in mind, here are a few snippets of what Sanchez the Fox News "war correspondent" has to say about Don't Ask Don't Tell, the very policy he violated back in 2004:

Although “the primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise”, forcing the military to legitimize same-sex relationships will be a Trojan Horse for imposing gay marriage nationwide and all in the name of “change.”
The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) would force the United States military to accept the future same-sex marriages of those serving. Activists would use this federal recognition of gay marriage in the military to challenge and force a repeal of state constitutional amendments, but wedding bells are not the only reason why gay advocates and military officials should not be heading to the altar.

I've been in and around the gay rights movement for more than a decade, and this is the first I've ever heard of this alleged strategy -- for which Sanchez provides absolutely no citation, of course.

Many pro-gay groups hold up the example of international armed forces throughout the world that have lifted bans on homosexuality. It is true: France, Germany, Italy and Spain all permit openly gay service members. But in Afghanistan, neither France, Spain, Italy or Germany will confront the Taliban.

Sanchez conveniently leaves out the U.K. military, which has joined the U.S. in battling the Taliban, and which not just allows gays to serve but aggressively recruits them.

Will gay service members have to be separated from their non-gay service members? Will separate showers and living quarters be required? Or will there be all-gay military units? Will gays who don’t wish to self-identify be forced to do so?

Ahh yes, the old personal privacy canard, one that clearly poses no personal problem for Sanchez, the exhibitionist. As Sanchez himself proves, gays have been able to lawfully serve in the military since 2003 1993, when DADT replaced the outright ban on gays in the military, so whatever privacy issues exist are already dealt with.

What's more, allowing gays to serve openly would actually improve the privacy of heterosexual soldiers and sailors, who currently have no idea who among their compatriots is gay. Once a service member comes out, those with want to hide their naughty bits can do so much more effectively, and the openly gay soldier will no doubt make much more of an effort to avoid anyone thinking he might be leering.

The new commander-in-chief can unilaterally repeal Don’t ask Don’t Tell with a stroke of a pen, but [President Obama] has held back.

Wrong again, Matt. Congress passed DADT, and President Clinton signed it into law. Only a new act of Congress can repeal the ban and allow gays to serve openly.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Fox News, gay porn, gays in the military, Matt Sanchez, Rod Majors

Filed in: Matt Sanchez , Military

Comments (11)
TrackBack (0)

January 09, 2009

'Yes' to getting rid of DADT

Posted by: Andoni

UPDATE AT END

Future White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today answered some of the questions posed to president elect Barack Obama on his official website change.gov after round two of questions. In a video clip on Obama's web site Gibbs answers about five questions, with the one on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" being the last, at around the 4 minute 18 second mark. Here's what he said, as transcribed by me.

Gibbs (showing the question): Thaddeus from Lansing, Michigan asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?"
Gibbs (answer): That is Thaddeus, you don't hear a politician give a one word answer much, but it's "Yes."

Not that this is anything new. Obama has promised this from the beginning. But it certainly is refreshing to hear it again, after the election and from his official future White House spokesperson.

I don't know why they decided to answer this question. It wasn't one of the over-all top vote getters. It wasn't even one of the top gay question vote getters. Maybe its because there had been rumors circulating that they were going to delay repealing DADT and they wanted to squelch the rumors. But then again, "yes" doesn't exactly say when, does it?

UPDATE: Today's New York Times also notes that when Gibbs answered this question he did not say when the repeal would occur and suggested that repealing DADT is one of the items on Obama's agenda that might have to be postponed because of all the effort that is going to have to be made to fix the economy.

Although I understand all this, this situation it is very frustrating. Now for the first time in 16 years we have the opportunity to pass major reforms that are long overdue. However, because the Bush Administration so trashed the economy (and country), the public demands that the economy be fixed first, so we are in a familiar quandary. If for any reason, the public turns on Obama and the Democrats (the economy doesn't get fixed, there is an internal attack, the overseas wars spiral out of control, etc), we will be left with another change of power (back to the Republicans), and another lost opportunity.

We cannot allow that to happen. If necessary, we should insist that if Dems are significantly diminished or turned out of power, that they must return for a lame duck session to pass all those promised pieces of legislation before they bid their final good-byes to Washington.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, Robert Gibbs

Filed in: Military , Obama

December 14, 2008

Our leaders aim too low

Posted by: Andoni

The Advocate just published 26 open letters to Barack Obama from prominent LGBT Americans advising him on the important issues we face as a community and making suggestions on how he should address them. These letters are fascinating to read.

Some are from leaders of single issue organizations and they concentrate mainly on their own issue. Others simply repeat the list of narrow items that have been on HRC's agenda for what seems like forever, you know, Hate Crimes, ENDA, etc. A few push Obama beyond what he has volunteered to give us, such as Evan Wolfson's appeal for full marriage equality.

My favorite four letters cite the inequities in U.S. immigration laws for gay and lesbian citizens, a subject dear to my heart, and specifically ask Obama to remedy this situation by ushering through Congress the Uniting American Families Act or recognizing our relationships for immigration. These letters are from Rachel Tiven, Vestal McIntyre, Jim Buzinski, and Lorri Jean.

But what struck me most about these letters was how timid the ones from the people we consider our national leaders are. In particular, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin simply asks for Hate Crimes legislation, a T inclusive ENDA, domestic partnership for federal employees (for federal workers only and only a very few of those 1200 federal benefits), and repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." No great vision.

Joe Solmonese , President of the Human Rights Campaign doesn't suggest anything, he simply offers that HRC will work with the president.

And none of these leaders picks up on a monumental issue Barack Obama has put in writing that he would like to give us.....it's right there in his Agenda items under Civil Rights on his webpage and is called the The Obama-Biden Plan. Barack says that we need to

...enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.

This is powerful stuff folks. If we pass this legislation, it would bring more gays rights to more Americans than all the other items on HRC's list combined. This legislation means that if a gay couple has a legally-recognzied union (any couple can go to VT to get civil unioned or MA to get married - both legally recognized unions), the federal goverment would then grant you those 1200 federal benefits that married opposite sex couples have. This is seismic. And recognition of our relationships has an approval rating of 55-66% as long as you don't call it marriage. This could be easier to pass than the controversial T inclusive ENDA.

Barack Obama is proposing one great piece of legislation here, yet none of our leaders seems to have noticed. None of our national organizations have picked up on this item on his agenda to begin working on it with him; none of our Congressional leaders are writing such a bill that the president would welcome.

It's time to stop thinking about getting our rights one small sliver at a time. It's time to start thinking bigger and grander than most of our leaders and national organizations are doing.

It's mind boggling that none of our leaders in Congress or our national organizations seem to have realized the full potential of what Obama is proposing. If passed this legislation would bring more equality, more happiness to more LGB Americans than any other piece of legislation I can think of.

The letters in the Advocate indicate to me that most of our leaders are aiming too low and aren't fully listening to Obama to take advantage of all that he is offering.

Technorati Tags: agenda, civil rights, federal benefits, gay rights, Obama, same-sex immigration

Filed in: Civil Unions , Immigration , Marriage , Military , Obama

November 24, 2008

The expectation lowering continues

Posted by: Chris

Are we already seeing Rahm Emanuel's fingerprints?

From the (anti-gay) Washington Times:

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

"I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

What does it say about what lies ahead if Barack Obama's top staffer believes Bill Clinton's biggest mistake on gay issues was not throwing us under the bus but (once in a blue moon) supporting us?

And what does it say for our movement that its leaders often sound like White House flaks the way they make excuses for equality further delayed?

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, gays in the military, Rahm Emanuel

Filed in: Military , Obama

November 19, 2008

To my bah humbug friends…

Posted by: Chris

UPDATE: At the end of the post.

When the election of Barack Obama sent many gay Americans dancing into the streets -- figuratively and literally -- celebrating, my dear friend Kevin offered a sober, some might say cynical, reality check:

[W]hy gay Americans should be shitting themselves with glee right now is, frankly, something I can't comprehend. The 2008 election was, in fact, a disaster for gays. And as the reality of our situation in America sets in over the coming days, as well as the next two years, it seems that nothing but a crashing disillusionment set against the backdrop of such wild celebrations last night is the only thing that could smack the gay community awake once and for all.

Well, we all saw how the dancing celebrations quickly transformed themselves into angry protest, for day after day in California and culminating in a National Day of Protest on Saturday that was unprecedented in size, reach and energy. (I say that having participated in both the 1993 and 2000 Marches on Washington.) Already there are creative campaigns to shine blue lights outside homes and businesses in support of equality, as well as talk of additional protests, including during inauguration weekend, and maybe even another March on Washington in May.

However you feel about street protests, it's no fair tsk-tsk-ing these folks for wild-eyed optimism about Obama's election. Clearly, they see the need for continued activism and continued pressure.

It's also becoming more apparent than political climate in Washington for gay rights is not the same today as it was in 1992, as much as my bah humbug friends would have us believe. For one thing, the president-elect has already reiterated in writing the promises he made during the campaign to push for a wide array of federal LGBT rights. He didn't have to do that; anyone named Clinton certainly wouldn't have.

Just today on the Hill, a leading House Democrat predicted repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" during the first year of the Obama administration. Does that make it so? Of course not, but she also didn't have to do it. Like the Obama-Biden Plan on LGBT Rights, the promise made by Rep. Ellen Tauscher is an early sign, mere days after the election, that real change may well be coming to America.

I do not agree with Kevin, either as a historical or prospective matter, that "the national Democratic Party doesn't care one bit about gay rights, beyond pleasant words and reaping big, pliant cash donations." I have been as critical over the years as anyone of their inaction and unfulfilled promises. No doubt they take advantage, and no doubt they milk us again and again.

But they do care about gay rights, in my view, just as their GOP counterparts care about opposing gay rights and limiting legal access to abortion. The reality that gives rise to the cynicism is that politicians of all stripes tend toward the cowardly, doing the absolute minimum they think they can get away with.

That is where we come in, and why continued pressure from us, if not from our supposed leadership, is so critical. If the Democrats co-opt us into believing only hate crimes and ENDA are achievable in Obama's first year or first term, then that's surely all that we'll get. But, my bah humbug friends, the same holds true if we give in to cynicism -- confusing 2008 with 1992 and Barack Obama with Bill (or Hillary) Clinton. Cynicism can lower your sights, just as being coopted can, and you're left in the same place as the very HRC-ites you justifiably condemn.

In that respect, Barack Obama was absolutely right. We are the change we've been waiting for.

Know Hope But Verify.

UPDATE:

One grassroots effort that sprung up in response to Prop 8 offers a creative way to keep the pressure on the Obama-Biden team. Project Postcard, initiated by a group called the LGBTQ Civil RIghts Front, suggests mailing a postcard from your hometown with a "friendly little reminder" of candidate Obama's gay rights promises.

Here's the address:

President-elect Barack Obama
Presidential Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 S. Dearborn St., 38th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604

The Project's organizers suggest using the text of the postcard to call for repeal of DOMA, which certainly sounds good to me, but I would go one step further, calling for passage of a federal civil unions law:

Dear President-elect Obama,

Please ask Congress to enact a Federal Civil Unions Act repeal DOMA! All Americans should have the right to marry. Thank you in advance for advocating for the civil rights of your LGBT citizens.

Will a bunch of postcards change the world? Of course not. But it's going to be up to each and every one of us to do what we can to keep up the pressure, since it's unlikely to come from our "leaders" in Washington.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay rights, gays in the military, Log Cabin Republicans

Filed in: Military , Obama

November 14, 2008

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Expect

Posted by: Chris

There are more signs that initial impressions were correct about the administration of President-Elect Barack Obama tackling little more than enactment of already-popular, long-stalled measures like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act.

First there was the buzz that Sam Nunn, ringleader behind the so-called compromise policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," would "lead the handover team for the Department of Defense." It was Nunn, you will recall, who blindsided the newly-elected president from his own party in early 1993 by sounding the alarm about Bill Clinton's campaign promise to eliminate the ban on gays in the military.

The Obama team walked back those initial reports, insisting Nunn had no formal role in the presidential transition, but nonetheless acknowledged the former Georgia senator, now 70, "will play an informal senior advisor role throughout the defense transition process" because "his expertise and the respect he has earned will be invaluable."

Trumpeting "respect" for the man who crippled a new Democratic president by playing to bigotry is sure to hit a false note with many Obama supporters. So will word that Jamie Gorelick, Defense Department counsel during the Clinton years, is being considered for attorney general.

Gorelick has all sorts of baggage relating to her role in curbing anti-terrorism intelligence and later becoming a multimillionaire running Fannie Mae, but we gays will never forget her role as the legal architect behind "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It was Gorelick who created the legal fiction that DADT regulates "conduct" not free speech or "status" as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Well, not "conduct" per se, but proclivity to engage in conduct. So if a soldier or sailor says he is gay, his statement is taken under Gorelick's DADT framework as a rebuttable admission that he has a proclivity to engage in "homosexual conduct" -- meaning not just sodomy but holding hands, kissing, anything particularly homo.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws that criminalize sodomy in 2003; the military still uses Gorelick's DADT fiction to defend its indefensible policy, which the president-elect has said was wrong-headed from the start and harmful to our national security.

Finally, as if all that weren't enough, there is a depressing coda to my earlier post about how Rahm Emanuel, the new White House Chief of Staff, tamped down expectations that Obama would tackle gay issues early on in his administration.

Gay F.O.B. David Mixner apparently told harrowing stories in his 1996 book "Stranger Among Friends" about the arrogant atitude taken by Emanuel, a top Clinton advisor, took toward gays when DADT first hit the proverbial fan:

When President Clinton said publicly that he "wouldn't rule out" an idea to allow the military to segregate openly gay service members from straight ones, Mixner tried to contact the White House for an explanation.

"We don't have to explain or justify our actions to you," said Emanuel, according to Mixner. "If the President of the United States never does another thing for you people, you should get on your knees and be thankful. He's already done more for you all than anyone. How dare you question his actions!"

Mixner said Emanuel ultimately finished the phone conversation by saying "I will not talk to you anymore" and hanging up. Emanuel, he said, "made it very clear that he would decide what would be recommended to the President."

From his point of view, Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal, Mixner "unjustly criticized" Clinton. "If somebody criticizes the president," he said, "then I think they are persona non grata."

There's no way to square Emanuel's offensive attitude toward criticism by "you people" with President-Elect Obama's approach to gay rights, politics in general and toward dissent.

(An excellent article by former Blade editor Lisa Keen also retells Mixner's harrowing encounter with Emanuel over who would pay to replace trampled grass after the 1993 March on Washington. Rejecting any government responsibility, Emanuel said "some of your rich boys" should pay. Geffen can do it. So can several others. They'll want to please the president." Is there any better analogy to the Clinton-Dem attitude toward "you people?")

There's also hope that Emanuel, who compiled a gay rights record in Congress that is better than the Obama's, has mellowed somewhat on gay issues. Mixner himself remains cautiously optimistic:

When asked about Obama's choice of Emanuel for Chief of Staff, Mixner called him an "excellent choice."

"He should just remember it is sixteen years later and a lot of things have changed since then," said Mixner. "I am sure he is aware of it."

To borrow from Reagan, later paraphrased by Sullivan: Know Hope But Verify.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, DADT, David Mixner, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Nunn

Filed in: Military , Obama

July 25, 2008

More on DADT hearings

Posted by: Andoni

Yesterday Chris analyzed the Congressional hearings on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He did this as a journalist who remembers the disastrous last go around when this policy was discussed in 1993 and also as a journalist who happens to be gay and comprehends on all levels why DADT is wrong.

I found another particularly insightful view on the DADT hearings on Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, by hilzoy, someone who apparently is straight and was struck emotionally by two moments during the hearings. Getting people to feel an emotion is always better at getting their attention and effecting change, more so than any intellectual argument you can make. The hearings in 1993 concentrated on the emotion fear. Check out the two emotions hilzoy felt while watching these 2008 hearings.

Filed in: Military

Technorati Tags: don't ask don't tell, Elaine Donnelly, gays in the military

July 24, 2008

Sorry we asked, sorrier she told

Posted by: Chris

Little news was expected from Congressional hearings today on legislation to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military. Much like the last hearings held on the subject, way back in 1993, the witness list was pretty much lop-sided.

Last time around, even though Democrats were in control, then-Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, worked in bipartisan fashion with bigoted Republicans like Strom Thurmond of South Carolina to put up three or four witnesses opposing President Bill Clinton's campaign promise to repeal the ban on gays in the military for every one who supported it.

Those gay veterans with the temerity to show up for the hearing were subjected to questioning that was offensive then -- and seems downright loonie now. Thurmond, in particular, would ask in his Southern drawl, "Did you ever seek psiiiichological hep fo' yo' problem?"

This time around, the comic relief came in the form of Elaine Donnelly, president of the anti-gay Center for Military Readiness. Here's how Dana Milbanks of the Washington Post recounted things:

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks.

"We're talking about real consequences for real people," Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," the prospects of "forcible sodomy" and "exotic forms of sexual expression," and the case of "a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault" a fellow soldier.

At the witness table with Donnelly, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian, rolled her eyes in disbelief. Retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man who was wounded in Iraq, looked as if he would explode.

If reaction from House members was any indication, Donnelly's outlandish arguments only served to undercut her cause:

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement "just bonkers" and "dumb," and he called her claims about an HIV menace "inappropriate." Said Snyder: "By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country."

That said, inane arguments from the right and public support at a remarkable 75 percent aren't enough to motivate Democrats into doing anything more than holding hearings on the repeal bill. Despite repeated promises to the contrary, the election year is already being blamed for the stalled legislation.

Considering Democrats couldn't manage to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act despite bipartisan majority support in both houses of Congress and overwhelming public support, it's no surprise that they won't touch the third rail of national defense for the sake of us queers.

For related stories and breaking news, click or bookmark:

gaynewswatch.com/military

Filed in: Military

June 23, 2008

Gay soldiers in U.S., Brazil under fire

Posted by: Chris

Brazilian soldier released after arrest for coming out: QUICK LOOK: The Brazilian Army has released a soldier arrested on the set of a nationwide TV show just before going on-air with his military boyfriend. Sgt. Fernando de Alcantara... (MORE)
Suit challenges measure to ban Calif. gay marriage: QUICK LOOK: Civil rights organizations today asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing... (MORE)
Can a song be gay -- and if so, what makes it that way?: QUICK LOOK: Can a song be gay? It's a question that doesn't have an easy answer, but it's sure fun to try to puzzle out. And the True Colors tour that has been traveling across America... (MORE)
Despite changing vies, U.S. service members urged not to 'tell': QUICK LOOK: As the military considers its options in the latest round of court action surrounding its "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy regarding gays, some service members are considering... (MORE)
First Czech Gay Pride fest angers some conservatives: QUICK LOOK: The Southern Moravian capital of Brno in the Czech Republic will see the first gay and lesbian march ever held in the country. The so-called "Rainbow Parade" event, planned... (MORE)

These are the Top 5 popular stories on Gay News Watch over the last 24 hours. You can also view the most popular stories of the last week or month, as well as the biggest stories of the last 24 hours, week or month.

Filed in: Gay News Watch , Military

Technorati Tags: George W. Bush, Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese

June 18, 2008

HRC - thinking like George Bush

Posted by: Andoni

President George W. Bush’s presidency has been marred by its rigid thinking with little ability to change when new circumstances on the ground dictate that new ideas, policies, or plans should be tried.

I would argue that the Human Rights Campaign has been using the same modus operandi for the past 14 years. Their two prime priorities have been Hate Crimes legislation and the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA). Neither has successfully become law despite year s of trying and literally millions of dollars spent.

One would think that after 14 years of failure, some leaders of the gay movement would try to assess the situation on the ground and change priorities or strategy.

I was on the Board of Governors of HRC when they came up with the ENDA idea in 1993. Prior to that time gays were pushing for a more comprehensive civil rights bill. In 1993 polling showed that a workplace only bill with a little education could garner the votes to pass. The philosophy was easy. Try something small and do-able, then build on that.

The only problem with this approach was that Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and we never achieved the goal of passing that small carefully focused bill that was supposed to be easy. Here we are 14 years later pushing the very narrow rights bill, using the same strategy, unable to reassess things by looking at the bigger picture in our movement. Just like the Bush administration, we cannot admit failure and we cannot adjust and try something new.

If ENDA had passed in 1994, it would have been noteworthy and a great step forward. In 2008, it would be laughable it that’s all we can get after all our hard work and how far the public has moved in our direction. ENDA and Hate Crimes are way too little, way too late. Yet you don’t hear anyone from our national leadership speaking about what is important today and changing direction.

At some level I guess they realize how important it is to save and hold the marriage victory in California, but I don’t really hear the bugles sounding loudly on this to indicate what a crucial battle it is we face.

On the federal legislative level, I would argue that we should temporarily shelve Hate Crimes and ENDA and concentrate on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) first. DADT and DOMA are two pieces of legislation written into the federal laws of the land that say that not only can the federal government discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens, but they must discriminate. What kind of logic says that we should pass legislation (ENDA) that tells private companies that they cannot discriminate against gays (ENDA), when the government itself continues to discriminate against gays in some very big ways – the military, marriage, and 1200 federal benefits? This is like telling your child they can’t bloody people up in fist fights, when you the parent, set the wrong example by doing it all the time. Doesn’t make sense, right?

Similarly, this is as crazy as it would have been for black people ask for their Civil Rights Law of 1964 and Voting Rights Law of 1965 if it was still federal law that they could be slaves, were only 3/5 of a person, couldn’t serve into the military, and had to endure separate but equal schools. You have to get rid of the institutionalized discrimination in the federal government before you can pass federal legislation telling the public that it can not discriminate.

You can’t force the private sector operating in the public area to give equal rights to gays (or blacks), when the government itself has laws to discriminate against gays (or blacks) and actively does so. This is so upside down, it's crazy, illogical and hypocritical.

It’s time for Barney Barney and Tammy Baldwin and the leaders of HRC, NGLTF, Lambda Legal and the ACLU to sit down together to discuss a new strategy and new priorities. Things really need to be shuffled because we have not had any major re evaluation of our agenda and priorities since 1993 -94.

Things have changed so much that it's a totally new battleground out there and our leaders don't realize it. Public opinion has changed dramatically, marriage is our most important issue, and we have a presidential candidate in Barack Obama who would like to give us more than what our organizations are asking for. One such example of the new situation on the ground is that Obama has repeatedly said that he wants to give gay couples those 1200 federal benefits of marriage. This is huge, but I have not heard any of our organization pick up on how they will be ready to do this legislatively. They are still thinking about ENDA and Hate Crimes.

Wake up, leaders, it’s 2008, not 1994. Don’t be like Bush having set a plan in motion without ever re-evaluating it.

It’s time to reassess and make some new goals and plan new strategies.

Filed in: Bush , ENDA , Hate Crimes , HRC , Marriage , Military

Comments (14)
TrackBack (0)

May 17, 2008

Is this the same Kevin James?

Posted by: Chris

You may have already seen this priceless video clip showing conservative radio talk show host Kevin James making a complete ass of himself Thursday on MSNBC's "Hardball." From the get-go he is hyperventilating -- literally yelling -- about how President Bush was completely justified in comparing Barack Obama, at least by insinuation, with Neville Chamberlain, the infamous British prime minister and other "Nazi appeasers" from the late 1930s.

Chris Matthews tries 28 times -- I didn't count, but others have -- to ask James to explain what it is exactly that Chamberlain did so it could be compared with Obama's willingness to sit down for talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. James tries desperately to avoid answering, except to insist that Obama is "exactly the same" as Chamberlain. Eventually he admits he doesn't know what exactly Chamberlain did and Matthews pretty much lays him to waste.

I'd almost feel sorry for James, if he weren't so clearly deserving of the humiliation. The video clip is all over the Net -- just one version of it on YouTube has been viewed more than 250,000 times -- but the reaction in gay Washington circles has been more one of jaws dropping.

Could this really be the same Kevin James, who with his then-boyfriend raised huge sums of money in Los Angeles to support a number of gay political groups, including the Campaign for Military Service -- which later became the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network -- to support President Clinton's effort to end the ban on gays in the military?

I'm not familiar with James on-air schtick, but I'm mighty curious whether he feigns opposition to gay rights or if his Ditto Heads even know he's a big ole homo. Or maybe he's Tammy Bruce in drag?

Filed in: D.C. , Funny-HaHa , Media , Military

May 13, 2008

'Anatomy' does 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

Posted by: Chris

"Grey's Anatomy" has become one of my iTunes "season pass" picks, after I just couldn't wait the 6 to 8 months for the show to show up with subtitles down here in Brazil. I've been a fan since the show's premiere, just for the range of characters and heart-tugging storylines.

A recent episode featuring a gay soldier and his platoon boyfriend was no exception. Enjoy the clip from YouTube while it lasts:

Hat tip: My pal Steve in D.C.; also David Mixner.

Filed in: Military , Television

March 30, 2008

WaPo 'ins' gay soldier killed in Iraq

Posted by: Chris

The Washington Post ombudsman has gently criticized the paper's editorial judgment for "inning" a gay soldier killed in Iraq, omitting his sexual orientation from a story about his life.

Deborah Howell tackled the issue after a Washington Blade story quoted friends of Army Maj. Alan G. Rogers who were upset the Post ignored that Rogers was effectively the first openly gay soldier killed in the Iraq war. Rogers was out to many friends and was active in AVER, a gay veterans group.

Howell's look behind the scenes in the Post newsroom was quite telling:

For The Post, Rogers's death raised an unanswerable question: Would he have wanted to be identified as gay? Friends also struggled with that question but decided to tell The Post that he was because, they said, he wanted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule repealed. …

[The reporter] first wrote a story that included his friends talking about his orientation; some at the paper felt that was the right thing to do. But the material was omitted when the story was published. Many editors discussed the issue, and it was "an agonizing decision," one said. The decision ultimately was made by Executive Editor Len Downie, who said that there was no proof Rogers was gay and no clear indication that, if he was, he wanted the information made public.

It's fascinating to see journalists aggressive as those at the Post deferring to (some) friends and family rather than applying the same standards of newsworthiness they would to any other story. The Post stylebook even incorporates the views of the story subject into the editorial decision:

"A person's sexual orientation should not be mentioned unless relevant to the story . . . . Not everyone espousing gay rights causes is homosexual. When identifying an individual as gay or homosexual, be cautious about invading the privacy of someone who may not wish his or her sexual orientation known."

I'm not sure what "evidence" Downie needed to to prove Rogers' sexual orientation. Ex-boyfriends? Love letters? Did the reporter search for them? Yes it's true that heterosexuals can join gay rights groups and have gay friends, and that is true. But still why wasn't Rogers' participation in the group, which was confirmed, in and of itself newsworthy, along with what his gay friends had to say about him?

Howell eventually concludes in the last paragraph of her column that the story should have included Rogers' sexual orientation, but she cushions her criticism:

The Post was right to be cautious, but there was enough evidence -- particularly of Rogers's feelings about "don't ask, don't tell" -- to warrant quoting his friends and adding that dimension to the story of his life. The story would have been richer for it.

Cautious OK but the way the story was handled suggests a real double standard, however well-intentioned, is at work here. My own belief is that real reason for the omission -- which has been an ongoing issue with obituaries at the Post that I've written about a number of times over the years -- was signaled in the opening line of Howell's column:

What should a newspaper print about a person's most private life in a story after his death?

Rogers' being gay was his "most private life"? Why is the sexual orientation a gay person his "most private" secret when it is a routine fact treated with no privacy expectation whatsoever with heterosexuals? Howell acknowledges that Rogers kept his romantic life -- not sex life, which is private, but romantic life -- only as private as he needed to in order to comply with "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I'm not of the school that the press "owes us" our heroes and thus should report sexual orientation more frequently. But I do believe the same editorial standards ought to apply to gay and straight alike.

Technorati Tags: gay soldier, Maj. Alan Rogers, ombudsman, Washington Post

Filed in: Media , Military

Comments (9)
TrackBack (0)

March 18, 2008

SLDN schools Bill Clinton

Posted by: Chris

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, created back in 1993 after Bill Clinton signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law, has released an open letter to the former president, calling him out for his recent misrepresentations (here and here) of the policy itself, the politics that led to it, and the way it was enforced. In the letter to Clinton, SLDN director Aubrey Sarvis writes:

Over the last several months you have been asked by reporters and others about the passage and implementation of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.' You have stated the law was not implemented as you understood at the time it would be.

I gather from your comments that when 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' became law you intended for the Department of Defense’s implementing regulations to protect service members’ private lives. Unfortunately, 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s' implementing regulations are by in large consistent with the statutory language of the law itself and effectively prohibits service members from engaging in any actions seen as homosexual conduct. This includes simply telling others that you are lesbian, gay or bisexual.

It's rather than charitable of SLDN to believe that Clinton actually buys his own B.S. about the intended effect of DADT's implementing regulations, considering how clearly they proscribe any type of "homosexual acts," whether or not the soldier or sailor is in private or wearing a uniform.

Kudos to SLDN for speaking out, since it has become almost unthinkable for the current crop of Beltway gay groups to publicly criticize anyone generally considered "pro-gay. Will we see a similar statement from the Humarn Rights Campaign or the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, whether on this issue or Bill Clinton's revisionist history of that other twin pillar of anti-gay discrimination from his administration: the Defense of Marriage Act.

Filed in: Hillary , Military

Technorati Tags: Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SLDN

March 17, 2008

Reprioritizing our legislative agenda

Posted by: Andoni

The worst kind of discrimination is the kind our government inflicts on us. Relatively speaking discrimination that others inflict on us is not as bad, not as powerful.

Discrimination written into the law, like slavery or separate but equal public facilities, set the tone for society, encouraging similar conduct by private citizens and companies. For us as gay citizens, the two most egregious pieces of federal legislation that enshrine official anti-gay discrimination by the government are "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Friday I attended a fundraiser honoring Aubrey Sarvis, the new executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Aubrey was a very talented and successful telecommunications lobbyist, and he knows how to get legislation through Congress. Under Aubrey’s leadership, SLDN has a strategic plan to repeal DADT with either President Obama or President Clinton in the White House. What impressed me most, however, is that SLDN also has a strategy to work with a President McCain as well.

For me, the most important issue is same-sex immigration, but I realize that any success in ridding our government of institutionalized discrimination is a step toward reversing other anti-gay policies. For this reason, I am now supporting SLDN and believe that repealing DADT and DOMA are the two most important things we can do; more important and more symbolic than passing ENDA and hate crimes.

ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act were selected as top priorities because they were supposed to be the easiest to get through Congress. However, I think there is a stronger moral argumen that our government treat every individual equally under the law before it adopts legislation that insists individuals and companies do not discriminate.

I would like to see our national organizations shift their emphasis to give government discrimination basd on sexual orientation a higher priority than the efforts to remedy individual and corporate bias.

Should a friendly new administration be elected, DADT and DOMA should be repealed first because that would be most effectively set a new tone against gay discrimination everywhere. To get this done, more of our national organizations need to prioritize DADT and DOMA and follow the lead of SLDN -- building a strategic plan. Getting this legislation passed requires lots of ground work and resources. You can’t ad lib it or do it on the fly.

Filed in: Military

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in military

March 16, 2008

Bill's excellent gay military adventure

Posted by: Chris

There he goes again.

Two months ago, Bill Clinton tried to rewrite the history on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," making it seem that he and Colin Powell had come up with a policy that "meant literally that -- that people would be free to live their lives as long as they didn't go march in gay rights parades or go to gay bars in uniform -- in uniform -- and talk about it on duty they would be all right."

As I pointed out at the time, the former president described the policy exactly backward, since it actually OKs going to gay bars and marching in Pride parades -- neither of which necessarily mean you're gay -- but strictly prohibits doing anything in a soldier or sailor's private life (out of uniform) that involves "homosexual acts" (sex, kissing, holding hands) or "homosexual statements (coming out, love letters, etc.)

The reason for Bill's revisionist history was clear: he was trying to explain away why he signed into law a discriminatory policy that dishonored the military service of thousands of gay men and lesbians, and resulted in dramatic increases in gay-related discharges.

Back in January, gay groups mostly did nothing in response to Clinton's big gay whopper, probably because most are led by Hillary Clinton supporters. Only Log Cabin called him to the carpet. At my request, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network did issue a written statement from director Aubrey Sarvis, though only to me in an email:

As you point out, there were, indeed, some factual inaccuracies in President Clintonâs statement about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Indeed, regardless of the intention behind the law, the reality is that it has not served the best interests of service members, our country or our national security. Since its implementation, nearly 12,000 men and women have been dismissed under the law. …

President Clinton's comments also miss a key part of serving under "Donâ't Ask, Don't Tell." Military members cannot be out to anyone, at anytime, while serving under the law. Statements to friends, family members or anyone else are grounds for dismissal from the armed forces, as they have been since day one. The law, indeed, practically prevents any gay American, who is out in anyway, from serving in the military.

Sarvis also indicated in the statement that SLDN has "made sure that Senator Clinton's campaign is aware of our concerns regarding the President's remarks."

Well, whatever SLDN said it didn't stick. Because there he went again this week, repeating his false facts about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in an interview with college journalists:

It would have been a better policy if it had been implemented the way Gen. [Colin] Powell and I agreed to implement it. I think we may have the support now in Congress to get rid of it altogether. That's what we should do. We should do what every other major country has done and allow gays to serve honorably in the military. I'm not defending 'Don't Ask, Donât Tell' on the merits. Our guys came to us and said, 'Look. If you don't agree to this, theyâre going to bury you. You will have nothing.

It's classic Clinton, claiming he's not defending "DADT" when that's exactly what he's doing by suggesting some unseen Pentagon ne'er do wells enforced the policy in a different way than he and Powell had agreed upon. DADT was adopted in the first year of Clinton's presidency, if there was an enforcement problem then why didn't the Commander in Chief do something about it? Was he not ready to lead on Day 1?

In fact he wasn't, ironically. In this week's interview, Clinton portrays himself in an impossible political bind. But those of us who were in Washington at the time remember like it was yesterday how the president rolled over with absolutely no fight, agreeing to the "compromise" policy foisted on him by Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.

Ultimately it's a good thing of course that Bill Clinton supports his wife in repealing the policy, even as he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that it was the policy -- his policy -- that was wrong and discriminatory, and not how it was implemented by the military.

But Clinton isn't the only one who needs to come clean. Enough of the silence from gay groups on this. It's incumbent on SLDN, the Human Rights Campaign and the Task Force to proactively issue statements that correct the historical record.

For those who are interested, Clinton also offered some insight into why he promised during his 1992 presidential campaign to repeal the outright ban on military service by gays that existed previously. Follow the jump for that.

Filed in: Military , Primaries

January 23, 2008

When a Clinton lies about gay rights…

Posted by: Chris

… and no gay rights group makes a sound, did it ever really happen?

UPDATE: At the end of the post.

Yes it did, and now Log Cabin has posted the video evidence of Bill Clinton misstating the history and legal effect of his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military. The clip is short, so have at:

Still nothing public in response from the Hillary fans at the Human Rights Campaign, even though HRC hasn't hesitated to interject itself thus far during the primaries when it would benefit "the other HRC," Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In fact, the gay media and blogosphere generally has ignored the issue. So far all I could find was a post on Gay Patriot and a small story on PageOneQ (that doesn't test the validity of his comments).

Also conspicuously silent is the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization whose work on gays in the military I greatly respect. SLDN owes it to gay soldiers and sailors kicked out during the Clinton administration and since to correct Bill Clinton's gross rewriting of the history of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," not to mention the basic structure of the policy -- which was never intended to allow gay service members to "live their lives freely" so long as they didn't march in Gay Pride parades in uniform, as Clinton suggested.

I've asked SLDN for comment and am awaiting a reply.

UPDATE: Pam Spaulding did post in response to Bill Clinton's selective memory, concluding, "The long legacy of triangulation and the Clintons is too familiar not to make this new statement sound like another bit of Bill revisionist history going on."

Still nothing in the gay or mainstream media, and no reply from SLDN or its spokesperson Steve Ralls, who apparently spends a good portion of his day blogging off-topic over at the Bilerico Project. Since when did gay activism get so boring that they need to moonlight as journo-bloggers, anyway?

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in military, HRC, SLDN

Filed in: Hillary , HRC , Military , Primaries

Comments (10)
TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2008

Bill Clinton hoisted on his own petard

Posted by: Chris

The video clip of Bill Clinton misstating the legal effect and history of his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has turned up over at PageOneQ. CNN's Situation Room broadcast the excerpt, and here's exactly what the former president, stumping for votes for his wife in Nevada, had to say:

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" as it was articulated, as I worked it out with Colin Powell, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meant literally that -- that people would be free to live their lives as long as they didn't go march in gay rights parades or go to gay bars in uniform -- in uniform -- and talk about it on duty they would be all right. Now, as soon as he left, the anti-gay forces in the military started using it as an excuse to kick people out.

The impression from the video is that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was limited to a service member's conduct "in uniform," and they were free to "live their lives" out of uniform, in private. That is a gross misstatement of the policy, as I outlined in a post yesterday, which makes no meaningful distinction between conduct in uniform and out.

As constructed by Bill Clinton's Defense Department lawyers, led by Jamie Gorelick, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was falsely cast as a "homosexual conduct" policy that far from allowing gay soldiers and sailors to "live their lives," required that they actively lie in inevitable banter about personal lives and engage in absolutely no "homosexual acts," which includes not just sodomy but kissing, holding hands or anything indicating romantic interest in someone of the same gender.

And there is no evidence to support Clinton's claim that Colin Powell's departure from the military in September 1993 had any impact on the way his policy was implemented. For one thing, Bill Clinton remained the commander in chief for the proceeding seven years, and groups like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network painstakingly documented abuses in the policy, as well as its basic unfairness. The buck stopped with Bill, not simply the Pentagon, to stop the witchhunts. Instead, discharges increased annually until after Bill Clinton left office and the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon's "stop loss" policies allow gays to die during war, even as they would be discharged during other times.

Just so we're clear, I know of what I speak. One of the first things I did after coming out at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Covington & Burling in 1993 was to bring a constitutional test case representing Navy Lt. Paul Thomasson, a decorated pilot working then in the Pentagon for the Navy admiral in charge of enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Even though the admiral testified at Paul's discharge hearing that he was a model lieutenant whose homosexuality didn't bother the admiral or any of Paul's coworkers, the panel ruled against Lt. Thomasson and his military career came to an abrupt end. The point of Thomasson's case was two-fold: that the policy was unconstitutional and that the Clinton Defense Department was irrational to conclude that merely stating, "I am gay" was presumptive evidence that a service member was violating policy by engaging in "homosexual acts."

I left Covington and Washington at the end of 1994, but the firm continued to represent Paul, whose case was the first gays in the military challenge to be rejected (without comment) by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would be one thing for Bill Clinton to argue that he was sandbagged by the pushback he got on his promise to end the ban on gays in the military, so he agreed to a "compromise" that in retrospect was wrong and discriminatory. That would at least be closer to the truth, although it wouldn't capture just how little Clinton tried to defend himself and gay service members at the time.

But Bill Clinton under pressure is not a pretty sight. So like his shifting positions on Iraq (and those of his wife), he tries instead to weasel his way out of responsibility, rewriting history and, no doubt, doing some damage control on his own legacy.

It is incumbent on the media and gay rights groups, whatever their presidential candidate affiliation, to call Bill Clinton out on his misrepresentation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and correct the record once and for all.

For related stories and breaking news, click or bookmark:

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in military, Hillary Clinton, Jamie Gorelick, Paul Thomasson

Filed in: Hillary , Military , Primaries

Comments (2)
TrackBack (1)

January 19, 2008

Déjà Bill all over again

Posted by: Chris

Powellclinton It's beginning to feel a lot like the '90s. All of Bill Clinton's campaigning on behalf of Hillary has allowed to us to relive some of the highlights and lowlights of his two terms in office, including his (very instructive) betrayal of campaign promises on gay rights.

Now the Log Cabin Republicans have issued a statement condemning Clinton -- Bill, not Hillary -- for rewriting history on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." According to LCR:

On the campaign trail Thursday for his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former President Clinton said, "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' as articulated as I worked it out with Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meant literally that...that people would be free to live their lives as long as they didn't go march in gay rights parades or go to gay bars in uniform...in uniform...and talk about it on duty, they would be all right. Now, as soon as he [Colin Powell] left, the anti-gay forces in the military started using it as an excuse to kick people out."

The entire Log Cabin press release, which hasn't been posted to the group's website, is available in the jump to this post. Kudos to LCR for raising the issue, but demerits for not offering a link to Clinton's comments or some hint of where they can be found. (My own Internet search turned up squat, so let me know if any of you find it.)

If the Log Cabin quote has it right, then Bill Clinton definitely got it wrong. LCR leader Patrick Sammon hits the former commander in chief and would-be first gentleman pretty hard:

"President Clinton's latest attempt to re-write history and deny the reality of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is an insult to the thousands of gay and lesbian service members who have been kicked out of the military because of the failed law he signed in 1993," said Sammon. "President Clinton either didn't understand the legislation he signed or he's lying."

If anything, I would hit Clinton even harder. His recollection of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has things completely bassackwards. In fact, the policy makes a point of saying that service members can go to a gay bar or march in a Gay Pride parade without violating the policy. What they cannot do is acknowledge that they are gay or, as Clinton put it, "live their lives." Because if they had a same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend -- even kept in private -- then they violated the policy.

Why? Because Clinton and Defense Department lawyers led by Jamie Gorelick portrayed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a "homosexual conduct" policy. A soldier or sailor who acknowledges they are gay is in violation not because they are gay -- that's not prohibited under the policy -- but because by publicly acknowledging as much, they are presumed to be engaging in "homosexual conduct" -- i.e., sodomy, same-sex kissing and other gay yucky stuff (protected by the U.S. Constitution).

This fig leaf rationale was employed to hide the real reason for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": the Pentagon brass knows gays can serve honorably but was worried about the effect on "combat readiness" if bigoted heterosexual soldiers became aware of gays with whom they served. So rather than acknowledge and deal with anti-gay bigotry, Bill Clinton and Colin Powell gave it the effect of law (another constitutional violation), and punished the gays for it.

Not surprising, then, that Clinton is misremembering reality today, as even his wife advocates the repeal of his policy -- albeit while defending its enactment as a necessary "transitional" measure.

This is what you get with the Clintons, folks. Why would we want a repeat?

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, Hillary Clinton, LCR, Log Cabin Republicans

Filed in: Hillary , Military , Primaries

Comments (14)
TrackBack (1)

January 17, 2008

Dems 'Don't Tell' on gays in military

Posted by: Chris

Lost amid all the headlines about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton calling a truce at Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Nevada was a question by NBC's Tim Russert about whether they would enforce a statute on the books that cuts off all federal funding to colleges and universities that do not allow military recruiters on campus.

Russert didn't explain that the purpose of the statute, known as the Solomon Amendment, wasn't to override liberal universities opposed to the war or the military generally -- but to block dozens of schools from enforcing non-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation, which prohibit on-campus recruiting by employers unwilling to sign a pledge not to discriminate.

The military, of course, does discriminate based on sexual orientation, forcing soldiers and sailor who are gay, lesbian and bisexual to hide and lie about who they are and to remain celibate. A group of the nation's most prestigious law schools, including the alma maters of Obama (Harvard Law) and Clinton (Yale Law) challenged the constitutionality of the amendment on First Amendment grounds but lost in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Unfortunately, most debate viewers were completely unaware of this background because the way the question was put by Russert, the Solomon Amendment came off as a progressive effort to achieve a better balance in the military among poor urban and rural service members and well-off, college-educated youth. Perhaps as a result, all three Democrats promised aggressive enforcement of the Solomon Amendment without even acknowledging the civil rights issue at the heart of it.

Ditto Russert's follow-up about schools that resist on-campus Reserve Officer Training Corps programs. Some objections may be pacifist, but most are civil rights based, and all three candidates are on record agreeing that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is wrong, discriminatory and should be repealed. (The full question and responses are excerpted in the jump to this post.)

The Supreme Court correctly decided the Solomon Amendment case, since the law is viewpoint neutral and schools can still inform students who visit military recruiters about the school's opposition to the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Even still, it was unfortunate that none of the candidates managed to at least raise the issue in their answers.

Credit CNN commentator David Gergen, a moderate Republican who also worked in Bill Clinton's administration, for raising the issue at the end of a commentary about the debate:

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.

One of the ways to test the candidates' commitment to gay rights is what they say to a general audience when given the opportunity to address gay issues. On that score, all three failed on Tuesday night.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic debate, gays in the military, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nevada, Solomon Amendment

Filed in: Edwards , Hillary , Military , Obama , Primaries

March 20, 2007

Defend us or defend us not?

Posted by: Chris

In my column for gay newspapers this week, I had a chance to look back with a bit of perspective on the controversy over Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, justifying the ban on military service by out gays because "homosexual acts" are "immoral."

Like most gay people, I sharply criticized the general for injecting his own personal moral view into a public policy debate. And yet, like most gay people, I was also critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama for not injecting their moral views on homosexuality.

That double-standard — that moral views about homosexuality ought to be heard in politics but only from our friends — probably explains why exactly half of you voted in my online poll that, "Yes, politicians should defend the morality of gay Americans," and the other half voted, "No, the personal view of politicians about the morality of homosexuality ought to be irrelevant."

I had originally voted "yes," and wrote as much. In my column, I reconsidered that stance:

Perhaps we all fell too easily into the trap set by Pace's remarks, expecting politicians to defend our morality instead of our equal treatment under the law. If we truly believe in the separation of church and state, and that personal moral views have no place in politics, then we shouldn't demand that gay-friendly politicians pronounce us "moral" any more than we accept it when conservatives like Pace call us immoral.

We know more than enough about most politicians and even most religious leaders not to put too much stake in their moral approval anyway. Let's not get distracted from the real equality issues at the heart of the movement.

It's controversies like this one that remind me why "separation of church and state" never really commands the full support of most Americans in practice as much as it does in principle. Because deep down, we want our political leaders to share our moral outlook on the important social issues of the day, even if we say it's only the policy position that ought to be important.

Filed in: Hillary , Military , Obama

March 15, 2007

A Clinton-Obama immorality tale

Posted by: Chris

Congratulations, homosexuals. You're not immoral, after all. Or so said the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination today, backtracking from their evasive answers about whether they agreed with Joint Chiefs chairman Peter Pace that gays are "immoral."

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had said only yesterday that she would leave the matter for others to conclude, issued a short statement reacting to angry gay supporters:

I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.

The clarification is welcome, even though it is carefully couched (imagine!) to piggyback on a conservative Republican, inoculation from criticism down the road. Query whether treading a path already blazed by a right-wing Republican is what gays really need in the way of White House leadership.

Barack Obama also issued a short statement, as well he should have since he tied St. Peter's record of thrice-refusing to embrace the morality of his gay supporters. Said the Illinois senator:

I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.

Credit John Edwards with coming out full-fledged in disagreement with Pace from the get-go.

This from CNN's "Situation Room," even before Hillary and Obama dodged:

BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don't — don't share that view. And I would go — go further than that, Wolf. I think the don't ask, don't tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson gets a bit of a pass, since AP apparently asked him about the controversy only after he saw the trap that ensnared the two leading Democrats:

Richardson called Pace's remarks "unfortunate" and said the Bush administration should reject them, adding that he would push Congress to repeal military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. …

"People should not be judged based on their sexual orientation," the New Mexico Governor said in Santa Fe. "Throughout my entire career I have fought for equal rights and against discrimination of any kind."

All these statements and clarifications leave me feeling a bit uneasy, and only partly because they were even necessary. For one thing, if we really believe that General Pace's personal moral views about our lives ought to be irrelevant to public policy, then why are the personal moral views of these politicians of any interest? Perhaps that's why almost half of you who've voted in my blog poll said they didn't want the candidates defending our morality.

And maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but are the Democrats parsing words here? General Pace never said "homosexuality is immoral," and it's a bit of a straw-man to suggest otherwise. He said "homosexual acts" are immoral, and in so doing he tracked the language of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which still prohibits consensual homosexual sodomy.

Leave it to an anti-gay conservative to understand the difference. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator trying to steal the Republican right from Mitt Romney, understands the difference. Asked if he agreed with Pace, Brownback followed the classic "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach:

I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this.

Brownback also gets credit for consistency, if not respect for pluralism, since he argues that his own personal view and that of General Pace are perfectly suitable grounds for public policy, even if that means discharging gays from the military. Said Brownback:

We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues. In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views.

Were the Democrats still dodging by saying they disagree that "homosexuality is immoral" while taking no position on whether "homosexual acts" are? Maybe that's why Hillary told Bloomsburg News (watch the video here), all while "clarifying" her disagreement with Pace, that morality will still have a role to play in the military, even after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

Let the Uniform Code of Military Justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love.

"Who they are" and "who they love" are about sexual orientation, of course, while "what they do about it" is about those dirty "homosexual acts" about which the general spoke so fondly. Technically speaking, the UCMJ is silent as to sexual orientation, while saying loudly that only heterosexuals are allowed to act on theirs.

Here's to holding out for someone to say in response to General Pace that not just "who they love" but "what they do about it" ought to have no bearing on whether Americans can serve their country in uniform, whether or not their "acts" are thought to be "immoral" by some.

Filed in: Hillary , Military , Obama , Primaries

March 14, 2007

Hillary dodges 'immorality' issue

Posted by: Chris

Hillary Rodham Clinton's interview today on ABC's "Good Morning America" made headlines because she (belatedly) joined calls for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' resignation. But ABC's Jake Tapper also asked Clinton what she thought of comments by Joint Chiefs chairman Peter Pace in support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because of his personal belief that homosexuality is "immoral."

Tapper asked Clinton if she agreed with the general about the morality of homosexual acts and rather than take issue, as John Edwards had in an CNN interview and even Republican Sen. John Warner (Va.) did, Clinton dodged. "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.

In a report about Clinton's demurral on CNN's "Situation Room," campaign spokesman Philippe Reinns tried to undo the damage, issuing a statement that said the Democratic frontrunner "obviously" disagrees with Pace and that everyone, including the general, "has the right to be wrong, but should not inject their personal beliefs into public policy."

The report also quoted a political analyst who attributed Clinton's unwillingness to stand up for the morality of gay and lesbian Americans to her carefully scripted campaign, which makes it difficult for her to be "spontaneous." Credit Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson with calling on Clinton to stand up for her gay and lesbian supporters. "I assume that Senator Clinton ... understands that gay Americans are not immoral, and she ought to say so clearly," he told CNN.

Yes, Clinton opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a policy backed by her husband when he was unwilling to fight to allow gays to serve openly in the military, as he had promised in his campaign. And yes, there is something to be said for politicians (and generals) staying out of the debate over the "morality" of homosexuality, since there personal views should be irrelevant to public policy.

At the same time, HRC (the candidate) can hardly expect to believe she'll be our "champion," and be willing (unlike her husband) to actually expend political capital on our behalf, if she won't even say publicly whether she thinks we're immoral for pursuing the same happiness in relationships as straight Americans. And her demurral is even more galling when you think about the clear "arrangement" she reached in her own marriage that stands far outside the bounds of traditional morality.

We need to hear from Hillary herself. Are we "immoral" or not?

UPDATE: This just in from a reader. Apparently Barack Obama is dodging as well:

Barack Obama joined Hillary in courting gays and lesbians by calling for the rollback of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" — without wanting to directly refute General Pace's comment that homosexuality is "immoral."

Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving the firefighters convention and asked him three times if he thought homsexuality is immoral.

Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."

Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.

Why the dance? Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to alienate moderates — or social conservatives, the churchfolk who view homosexuality as a sin.

If you give them the benefit of the doubt, it's for the reason given by Obama and implied by HRC: that personal views about the morality of homosexual acts ought to be irrelevant to public policy. The more skeptical view is that suggested by the reader.

I think these candidates need to understand that, since Pace has injected the issue of our morality into public debate, we need to hear from them that they respect our relationships, even if they are unwilling to go the full distance and back marriage equality. It is not too much to ask.

Filed in: Hillary , Military

March 13, 2007

The bible-thumping general

Posted by: Chris

In a surprisingly candid interview with the Chicago Tribune, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace explained that his support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is based on his own personal view that homosexuality is "immoral":

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.

It is striking to see the nation's top uniformed military officer, in the midst of a long slog war that has been so purely executed, taking time out to explain why he thinks gay Americans should be blocked from serving openly because it offends his personal beliefs. He does not go on to explain why military policy should enforce his personal moral code, and the Tribune unfortunately doesn't ask.

It's worth it to visit the Tribune site to listen to the small audio clip of the good general. He winds up tongue-tied as he tries to explain how "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" serves to defend his moral code. It's easy to understand how he gets tripped up. Current policy does not protect the military from service by immoral homosexuals; it protects bigoted heterosexuals in the military from knowing the gays are there.

Before 1993 gays were banned from military service — end of question. Under DADT, gay men and lesbians are allowed to serve so long as they stay in the closet and aren't caught engaging in "homosexual acts."

Therein lies the aspect of DADT that most offends the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear long ago that, while the Constitution does not require the government to eradicate private prejudice; it cannot give that bigotry "public effect" — meaning it cannot enforce anyone's private moral code on anyone else.

The Supreme Court case that stated that principle involved efforts by morally upstanding Texans opposed to a mental health facility in their neighborhood. It was, of course, in another famous case from the Lone Star state, Lawrence vs. Texas, that the court made clear that personal objections to homosexuality — or "homosexual acts," as the general put it — cannot be enforced through criminal law.

Yet the Uniform Code of Military Justice still outlaws sodomy, almost four years after Lawrence was decided. And the Joint Chiefs chair can wax moralistic in explaining why private, consensual homosexual sex is the equivalent to adultery.

The last time I checked, it was our sworn enemies in the "war on terror" who advocate the use of laws to enforce their personal beliefs. General Pace should make clear just which side of that war he's on.

Filed in: Military

March 11, 2007

Busted by the Blade

Posted by: Chris

It turns out that Marine Reserves Cpl. Matt Sanchez may not have been completely honest about just how far back in his past some of his time in the gay sex industry. His porn work, he claims, dates back 15 years, and he has said up until now that his escort work does as well.

But in a radio interview with Alan Colmes — the leftie punching bag for Fox News' Sean Hannity — Sanchez is confronted with a personal ad he placed in the New York Blade as recently as 2004 offering his "massage" services. Sanchez at first denies the ad is his, and Colmes doesn't help matters by mangling the publication name. Eventually, Sanchez "owns up to everything" even while claiming someone could be placing fake ads with his name and phone number.

You can understand Sanchez's need to stay vague. Not only does he risk blowing his conversion-to-conservativism story, if he's been tricking out for money so recently, he also risks getting tricked right out of the military.

Sanchez joined the Marine Reserves in May 2003, long after the (apparent) end of his porn career. But if he was selling "massage" services that involved "homosexual conduct" as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then he could get the boot from the Marines, and not in a good way.

Maybe now is the time for Sanchez and his conservative friends-standing-by-him to call for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Here's the interview (audio only):

Hat tip: AmericaBlog

Filed in: Matt Sanchez , Military , Sex

'The real 11 inches' on Matt Sanchez

Posted by: Chris

Matt Sanchez may have left his gay porn-escort past behind him, but it is coming back to haunt, and I don't mean angry Ann Coulter phone calls. The Navy Times reports that the U.S. Marines have begun a probe — er, investigation:

Homosexual behavior is prohibited by an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that forbids “sodomy.”

As a member of the [Individual Ready Reserves], Sanchez falls under the authority of Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., where the commanding general’s staff judge advocate, Lt. Col. Michael Blessing, has begun an inquiry into the revelations about his past, according to command spokesman Shane Darbonne.

“We’re looking into it and we’re going to verify facts and determine if any further action is warranted,” Darbonne said.

As of Friday afternoon, officials at Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans were unable to confirm whether Sanchez had enlisted prior to the end of his film career or if Reserve Marines were prohibited from doing porn when not in a drilling status. Sanchez has not returned phone calls seeking comment. He joined the Corps May 14, 2003 and is a refrigeration mechanic.

On Friday officials at Marine Corps Recruiting Command were unable to say whether past participation in gay porn disqualifies a potential enlistee because it was unclear how the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy might apply.

If liberal and gay bloggers can get over their (understandable) glee at the fact that O'Reilly-Coulter-Hannity put a gay porn star on their right-wing pedestal, the real focus of the Sanchez flap ought to be here. Or, as Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force put it, this is "the real 11 inches" of the Matt Sanchez story. Says Foreman:

There’s no inherent contradiction between Matt Sanchez being pro-military and being part of the ‘adult film’ industry. The real hypocrisy expresses itself in two different and important ways. First, the failed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law requires Matt Sanchez and thousands of other loyal Americans to hide their sexual orientation to serve their country in the military.

The important 11 inches in this story? That is the approximate distance between berths on U.S. naval submarines, so defamatorily measured in front of TV cameras by then-Sen. Sam Nunn in 1993, who immorally intimated that openly gay service members could not be permitted to bunk next to straight service members. From that shameful episode, Nunn led Congress to adopt the ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ law, which should now be repealed. Let’s be done with officially enforced closets.

It's not a juicy hypocrisy, but it's certainly wrongheaded, that adult consensual sodomy between two people of the same sex is still a crime under the Military Code of Justice, almost four years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down civilian sodomy laws.

It's little known outside legal circles that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" actually depends on that military sodomy law. Since the Clinton Justice Department (9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick in particular) wanted to hide how the policy is actually based on the "status" of being gay, they constructed it to be based on "conduct," in particular the UMCJ prohibition on "homosexual conduct."

So now Sanchez might get caught up in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," even though he's not technically "telling," since he claims he was so "bad at being gay" that he isn't anymore. (Huh?) Ironically, that ludicrous defense just might work. There's a loophole that allows a service member to stay even after being identified as gay if they can prove that they have no "predilection" for future homosexual conduct.

Let's hope this whole ridiculous house of cards comes tumbling down when the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston considers an appeal in a suit challenging the policy brought by the gay vets and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Or maybe the Democratically-controlled Congress will step up to the plate, and listen to a much more impressive handsome gay Latino Marine — Eric Alva, the first American injured in the 2003 invasion of Iraq — and repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

It's disappointing that Sanchez hasn't added his voice to that call, perhaps because he still hopes to curry favor with those conservatives who've been so accepting of his porn past. Whether or not he is actually gay — and Andy Towle is insisting he as "pretty good at it" back in the day — Sanchez ought to know as well as anyone that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unfair, and may well result in his own ouster.

Filed in: Matt Sanchez , Military , Sex

Comments (7)
TrackBack (0)

March 10, 2007

Judging an ideology by its followers

Posted by: Chris

Marine Reserves Cpl. Matt Sanchez posted an interesting essay on Salon.com where he argues that his history in gay porn is not only not hypocritical, as some gay and liberal pundits are charging, but helps explain why he wound up so conservative:

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don't like it. That's not hypocrisy talking; that's just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let's face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They'd be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.

Sanchez seems to be arguing that he turned right mostly over his distaste for those on the left. I can identify with him in a sense. When I arrived at a different Ivy League grad school in the late '80s, I had been branded a liberal and, by some, "a nigger white" for pushing diversity issues at a conservative Southern school.

I learned very quickly that conservatives had not cornered the market on intolerance, and it bothered me even more coming from liberals because it seemed so at odds with all their sermonizing about tolerance and respect. But really, which is worse? Intolerance from the right on the basis of ethnicity, religious beliefs or nationality? Or intolerance from the left based on ideology.

Sanchez wrote in Salon that his conservative colleagues have been far more accepting of his gay porn past than his liberal critics, a claim that surprises me, and I can't help wonder if it's wishful thinking or if it will last.

Regardless, I've come to realize that judging an ideology by its followers is not a particularly effective strategy. There's plenty of intolerance and hypocrisy to go around, along with respectful and thoughtful advocates. Powerful ideas can result in powerful abuses, as well as powerful progress.

Ultimately, choosing sides on an issue or more generally ought to come down to the merits of what's said, and not so much on who is doing the saying.

Filed in: Matt Sanchez , Military , Sex

Technorati Tags: Matt Sanchez

March 06, 2007

Gay escorts say the darn'dest things

Posted by: Chris

The blogosphere is all a-twitter with news that the handsome Latino Marine on all the news programs this week once worked in gay porn and advertised his services as an escort.

No, not that handsome Latino Marine, Edward Alva, who appeared at a press conference with Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts calling for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I'm talking about that handsome Latino Marine, Matt Sanchez who did the "O'Reilly" "Hannity" rounds to complain about how some socialist students at Columbia University were mean to him for being a minority in the military.

Blogger Joe.My.God gives the blow by blow:

If you are familiar with Cpl. Matt Sanchez, you probably know him as the handsome 36-year old Columbia University junior and USMC reservist who recently made the rounds of right-wing talk shows like "O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes," where he received praise for coming forward and complaining about his treatment at the hands of Columbia's "radical anti-military students" who called him names and mocked his military service. Sanchez was then feted at the CPAC conference where Ann Coulter made her "faggot" remark. Sanchez wrote an op-ed piece on the Columbia experience for the NY Post and began a blog and MySpace page chronicling his media exposure. …

Sanchez' face tinkled a few gay bells out there in fairyland, and [it turns out] Sanchez has had a lengthy career in gay porn, working under the names Rod Majors (NSFW) and Pierre LaBranche.

Sanchez hasn't denied anything, and since early posts by Joe and Tom Bacchus, blogger extraordinaire Andy Towle revealed that he actually went out on a few dates with Sanchez back in the late '80s. Since then, Sanchez has apparently given Joe a half-hour interview that left the liberal blogger impressed that the Columbia conservative is no "dumb bunny."

It will be interesting to see how the Sanchez story breaks. Liberals will scream "hypocrite!" which is their absolute favorite catch-all criticism. As applied to Sanchez, the charge seems particularly unfair. I'm not particularly sympathetic to his argument that Columbia should discipline his tormenters — if anything, there's your hypocrisy, since conservatives are supposed to be against campus speech regulations. But if you believe that gays should be able to serve in the military, and that there's nothing wrong with adult entertainment, then it's Sanchez service in uniform, not his servicing out of uniform, that should matter.

Or maybe some liberals will argue, as they did with Jeff Gannon before, that somehow it's hypocritical to be gay, conservative and have a sex life. I'm not sure they realize what they're really arguing: that something about selling sex for money (whether on film or in person) should make you a leftie.

The real travesty here is that coverage of Sanchez will dwarf coverage of Alva, who was the first U.S. service member injured in Iraq — he lost part of his leg — and his story of service with fear that he would be outed and discharged.

For video of Sanchez (on "O'Reilly," alas, not from his early work), follow the jump:

Filed in: Matt Sanchez , Military , Outing , Sex

Comments (19)
TrackBack (0)

December 19, 2006

Who cares if they 'told'?

Posted by: Chris

Not the soldiers and sailors they serve with, apparently. A new Zogby poll released today by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network found that almost three-quarters (73%) of U.S. military personnel are comfortable around gays, and nearly one-quarter (23%) know for sure that someone in their unit is gay.

Among 545 troops who served combat duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, 21% knew gays in their unit and nearly half (45%) suspected they did. A press release on the poll indicates "few said service [by gays] undermined morale," but didn't give a number.

These survey results strike at the core of the real justification of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which has never been about whether out gay men and lesbians can serve effectively. No one is still arguing the "old saw" that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. In fact, the Army was embarrassed recently by an old document that listed homosexuality as a mental illness and quickly changed the wording.

And it's not about service members' "privacy." If the goal of the policy were really to protect straight troops from sharing close quarters with gay troops, then the full-fledged ban we used to have on service by gays was the way to do that. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" allows gays to serve in those close quarters, so long as they don't reveal their sexual orientation.

An official policy of letting gays serve but only in the closet actually undermines the privacy of straight troops more than would lifting the ban. If straight soldiers knew who in their unit was gay, they could take steps to protect their privacy, and out gay soldiers would no doubt make every effort not to be seen looking where they shouldn't. It's the closeted troops who can stare all they want.

No, the policy isn't about privacy, but about protecting straight troops from their own supposed homophobia. That's what is meant by the risk to "unit cohesion" — not from gay personnel but the prejudiced reaction to openly gay personnel from their straight colleagues. It's what makes the military ban the most insidious form of discrimination in the U.S. today. Not only is it official goverment bias against gays; but unlike limits on marriage, it's based not on homophobia but on catering to it.

The supposed "judicial activists" in U.S. courts have mostly rejected constitutional challenges to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," deferring to Congress' ability to regulate the military. These decisions ignore clear Supreme Court prejudice, established in a case about neighbors objecting to a home for the mentally disabled in Texas, that says the Constitution does not require the government to eradicate private prejudice, but it does not permit the government to give that prejudice official effect, either.

Fortunately, even the unconstitutional justification for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is fading along with societal prejudice against gays generally. Back in 1993, when Bill Clinton's promise to let gays serve caused such a ruckus, support for gay service members among members of the military was at only 13%. Those worried about homophobic reactions to out gay soldiers and sailors could point to those numbers to support their worries about "unit cohesion."

But a 2004 Annenberg poll cited by SLDN put that number at more than half; and Gallup says some 79% of the general public support lifting the ban. Now this Zogby poll shows almost three-quarters are comfortable with gays, so the question to be asked is how long we continue catering to the prejudice of the remaining few.

Some would argue that the risk is too great to change the policy in the midst of war, but U.S. forces are already serving in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside units from the U.K., Canada, and most other European countries that allow out gays in their ranks. And with the military struggling to meet recruiting goals, we don't have a person to waste, as President Clinton was fond of saying.

Technorati Tags: gays in military

Filed in: Military

Technorati Tags: gays in military

November 25, 2006

'Don't Ask, Don't Mind'

Posted by: Chris

The U.S. Army has been spread so thin by President Bush's ill-conceived, even more ill-executed war
in Iraq that now we find ourselves literally unable to commit significant additional forces to the fight without compromising our national security. Democrats join Republicans in shooting down proposals to reinstate the draft as a way to boost troop numbers — and more equitably distribute the war's sacrifice.

That puts enormous pressure on military recruiters to find a way to enlist anyone still willing to walk into their offices despite the ongoing carnage in Iraq. They're using all sorts of creative ways to meet recruiting goals: raising the age limit from 40 to 42 — great, now I'm eligible to enlist — lowering aptitude test minimums, and issuing "moral waivers" that admit even those with serious criminal records, drug convictions and gang-banging backgrounds.

Of course there'll be no "moral waivers" for gay recruits. Being gay isn't a bar to military service, but gay recruits are not allowed to "tell" and the recruiters aren't allowed to "ask." But in practice, desperate times call for desperate measures, and many recruiters are apparently willing to overlook a little homosexuality on the way to meeting recruiting goals.

CBS-4 in Denver conducted an undercover investigation that revealed the practice:

A CBS-4 Investigation into recruiting by the United States Army found recruiters telling potential soldiers that it wasn't a problem if they were gay. The recruiters told people showing interest in being a soldier to keep their homosexuality to themselves.

Military policy states that if a potential service member discloses that he or she is gay, they are supposed to be immediately disqualified. … CBS4's undercover investigation found more than one Army recruiter who was willing to look the other way when a potential solider said they were homosexual.

Be sure to check out video of the report to see how the recruiters react to a potential enlistee coming out, laughing about how they'll "forget you said that" and it "won't be a problem."

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has always been based on fundamental hypocrisies: that gays can serve but only if straight soldiers don't know who they are; that somehow the privacy of straight soldiers would be compromised if they knew which of their comrades is gay; that gay soldiers are dismissed for "homosexual conduct" for "telling," even if that's all they do.

Now we learn a whole new layer of hypocrisy: Recruiters will overlook known gay enlistees so long as they keep quiet about being gay after joining up.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" don't work, and even provides straight service members who don't want to serve with an easy way out of the military. No one really believes that all of the 9,500 discharged under the policy since 1993 are actually gay. In fact, the Pentagon has defended increases in discharges in recent years by admitting many are straight soldiers pulling a "Klinger from M*A*S*H" — faking gay to get out. Then there are the desperately-needed Arab linguist specialists discharged under the policy.

John McCain reaffirmed just last week how happy he is with the policy, but momentum will grow in the new Democratic Congress to revisit it. In a time of war, we don't have a person to waste.

(Hat tip: Steve Rails, SLDN)

Filed in: Military