Matthew Shepard Act Faces Veto

It was little more than a Twitter Rumor earlier (or "tumor," or "twumor" if you will), but it appears that the US Senate has voted to end discussion on (63-28) the Matthew Shepard Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to federal hate crims states, to be attached to a Department of Defense authorization bill. There was unanimous consent to add it to a Department of Defense Authorization Bill as an amendment. The bill allows for a $1.75 billion program to fund the building of new F-22 jets, which Pres. Obama has opposed in the past.

That's right, folks, the Matthew Shepard Act is now attached not only to a defense bill, but one that Obama is not happy with amd has threatened to veto...

...which means we are, again, potentially fucked. From the Advocate:

"The President has long supported the hate crimes bill and gave his personal commitment to Judy Shepard that we will enact an inclusive bill,” said Shin Inouye [D-Hawai'i], referring to Shepard’s Oval Office visit with the president earlier this year. “Unfortunately, the President will have to veto the Defense Authorization bill if it includes wasteful spending for additional F-22s. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments is that the current program is sufficient to meet operational requirements. A Presidential veto would not indicate any change in President Obama’s commitment to seeing the hate crimes bill enacted."

*sigh* Does this mean we have to go through this again next year? Perhaps. We'll see.

For the record: I don't want the $1.75B spent on the F-22s, either. I think most defense spending is a complete waste, but it is one of the few things the federal government is constitutionally mandated to deal in... but we just spend too damned much on it, and wasteful wars. However, I might be willing to suck it up the spinning if the Matthew Shepard Act is attached.

Might be.

More Stuff on Obama and the Gays

Perusing the internet, there's lots and lots and lots of interesting stuff out there to read about Obama and the LGBTQ rights movement. Here's exactly four to look over. :-) Good morning, Cincinnati! Wish me luck on my two finals today!

From the Washington Post yesterday:

Obama's memorandum, designed to be both incremental and pragmatic, typifies the cautious way he has approached gay issues since taking office five months ago. Although he has appointed gays to prominent positions in his administration -- including John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management -- the memorandum marked his first official foray into the issue as president, a delay that has angered gay supporters.

A number of other constituencies have likewise been disappointed by Obama's pace in addressing their issues, as he has focused much of his attention on the economic crisis and foreign policy initiatives. Hispanic groups have expressed frustration that he has yet to take up comprehensive immigration reform, for example, and human rights and civil liberties organizations have criticized his opposition to the release of detainee abuse photos and his adherence to other aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies.

"We are working on a large amount of things," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday.

Poor press guy Gibbs -- that man has not been able to catch a break, and I don't think his boss has been helping him out all that much. What a weak answer. But, again, you can't build Rome in a day. Is that the quote?

From the Huffington Post, entitled "Will Gays Divorce the Democrats?"

What does this mean for 2010? Who knows. But the sheen is off the Dream Machine known as Barack Obama. And Congress and the DNC -- well, Tim Kaine is no Howard Dean -- he's made no real effort to reach out to LGBTs outside the Beltway. And that Obama for America online money pitch for the DNC may also dry up.

My answer: not bloody likely. Which is better, people who give you lip service and do a few things here and there, or people who run on an anti-queer platform? Seriously, though I have long argued that most gays would be Republicans if the GOP went libertarian (seriously, I know at least one Republican reads my blog).

From Stampp Corbin, via the San Diego News Network (the what?!):

Last Thursday, the Attorney General filed a legal brief in a California federal case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that made arguments that compared same sex marriage to incest. Thursday, President Obama announced the extension of some benefits to LGBT federal employees; just not the most coveted ones, like health care and pension benefits. Oh that’s right, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents that and you just wrote a legal brief defending it. When I wake up each morning, I feel a bit schizophrenic myself, “I love Obama, I hate Obama, I am ambivalent about Obama.” It’s maddening.

Someone get me a Prozac.

I ask, “Mr. President how can you argue for the legality of DOMA, when you are for its repeal?”

You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.

Whoa, dude. There's some seriousness going on out there. I just think it's way too much.

On another note, my school has blocked all blogger.com websites (except for blogger itself) and wordpress.com websites (except for wordpress.com itself). I have no idea what's going on. Absurdities. Apparently, this counts as "social networking."

EHEA and the Obama Memo

I'm almost through! By this time tomorrow, I will be done with my summer semester at school and will have 8 weeks off -- just enough time to complete all my clinical prep for year two at school! WHOO!!! Many thanks to my contributors for making sure the blog is updated in my intermittent involvement this week! You guys are the best!

But I wanted to just post two bits from the queerrevolution that you should know about:

First, the Equal Housing and Employment Act (EHEA) made it out of the State Government Committee of the Ohio House of Representatives. The EHEA (HB 176), as you may remember, is the law that will prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, making Ohio the 21st state in the union to do so (in a related note, I wonder if, with all the marriage talk lately, we will confront a situation in the near future where we have more states with equal marriage than equal protections :-)). According to Equality Ohio's email, it was recommended to a vote by the whole House in a 8-5 vote. The vote breakdown:

• For: Gerberry (D), Lundy (D), Sykes (D), Williams B. (D), Stewart (D), Mallory (D - hell yea Cincinnatian!), Sayre (D), and Hite (the only Republican to vote for it).
• Against: Adams (R), Daniels (R), Grossman (R), Hall (R), and Stebelton (R).

What next? Well, it goes to a floor vote. If it passes there, onto the state Senate, where there are some questions as to whether it can pass but Lynne Bowman, Executive Director of Equality Ohio, says that she is confident that fairness will come to Ohio. Gov. Ted Strickland is likely to sign the bill due to a long history of standing with queer Ohioans.

This is the first time the Ohio legislature has voted for fairness for LGBTQ individuals... ever.

Second, Obama signed the partners memorandum, giving very limited benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees and, by very limited, we mean very limited. In fact, it has sent the world into a small uproar seemingly for two reasons:

• It doesn't go far enough, failing to provide for health, retirement, or pension benefits for same-sex partners and is probably equitable to little financial benefit other than relocation costs. It seems that anything else would be against the law, per the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
• It is a memorandum -- not an executive order -- which means that it expires when Obama leaves office.

A fact sheet provided by the White House is available on the Advocate website detailing the benefits covered. It confuses me, the whole hubbub, as everyone is still cursing Obama's name, saying that it's too little too late.

I seriously wonder if homosexuals have forgotten the last 8 years, and we are just so hungry for someone to listen to us, that we are willing to go rabid at the mouth, screaming shouting and cursing our President, for not doing everything right now. You know, through the Bush years, no one would listen to us. I don't remember the HRC -- for once, I'm kinda standing up for them -- getting a personal meeting with Bush II to reassure them that the President was still on their side, unless I missed it? I know, I know. I want more now, too; I think Obama should put an immediate stop on discharges from the military under Don't Ask, Don't Tell pending legal review, and I think the DOJ-DOMA brief was shameful... and I think Obama's ongoing silence on LGBT issues makes him somewhat of a political coward.

But this is the first time any rights were granted to LGBTQ people since, well, since Bill Clinton. And Mr. Clinton, I might remind you, signed DOMA and DADT, so maybe Obama ain't so bad... but I am still rather bored by the ongoing expectation that we, as queers, will pay for politicos campaigns, whilst they are never willing to step up and do anything for queers. Maybe that's the reason nothing has been done? If the carrot is still hanging in front of us, will we still work as hard for the Democrats?

But that's just my thoughts.

DP Benefits to Federal Employees

Quick note. First of all, there's a lot of yelling about Obama these days -- and I won't say I'm not part of the problem, sometimes, as I've said some negative stuff in the past few weeks, but I don't think I'm as angry about it as much as other people. Partly because he's still on our side, and I still believe in him... in a way.

And he can do some things, and it seems he might be starting to. From the NYTimes, via a new Blogger friend and soon to be blogrolled at Columbus Gay Realtor:

President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance benefits.

Mr. Obama is expected to announce, in the Oval Office, the details about which benefits would be provided. It is the highest-profile statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay-rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”

So, even though it's not exactly what we're looking for, it is a huge step in our favor. Maybe it will be enough to calm everything down. With all the hullabaloo that's exploded over the blogosphere the last few weeks over the perceived injustices, I am reminded of a scene in Primary Colors when the new primary challenger, Fred Picker, entered the race and everyone is pumped and screaming and shouting and he steps up and says: "You know, maybe we should all just calm down. Maybe we just all need to sit down, take a breath, and stop yelling so much."

I mean, that's not an exact quote, but it's pretty close. Anyways, it's all got me thinking. Maybe this wouldn't happen if we hadn't been yelling... or maybe it would have. Or, maybe there is a plan?

EHEA, Queer PR Disaster, and Finals Week

It's finals week for me -- eep! -- but it's going well, except that I suddenly realize I have a paper due like tomorrow. Sigh. On the bright side, I officially rocked out ethics -- I have a 99.65% in the class! I know that will shock many in the world.

To sum up what's going on in the blogosphere: the shit hath hitteth the fan, and I advise you to follow what's going on with the Obama response to the Federal DOMA challenge, as the writing seems to liken marriage equality to incest and pedophilia. It even pissed off Joe "They Have a Plan" Solmonese. And then Harry Reid tells us there is no plan for DADT in the Senate. Coupled with a DNC fundraiser that's turning into a PR disaster for the administration... leading up to the creation of a site called ObamasPlanforGayRights.com. Whoa, dude. I've got to think on all this craziness. And I thought the New York Seante was still insane.

We may have the Matthew Shepard Act make it through the Senate today or tomorrow, but only after it got attached to the back of a Tourism Bill. Meanwhile, Washington DC's Board of Elections has rejected the referendum to overturn the out-of-state marriage recognition law passed last month based either on its contradictory purpose to DC's Human Rights Ordinance or because the main sponsor doesn't actually live in DC. Weird and wild.

Oh -- and it seems the National March for Equality on October 10-11 is on, and the permit has been secured. Of course, we have to know how the new Miss California -- taking over since Carrie Prejean was fired for not fulfilling her obligations -- feels on gay marriage. She doesn't like it, but she says, "I don't think I have the right or anybody has the right to tell somebody who they can or can't love." See? Was that so hard?

And, finally in national news, after we heard that the US Conference of Mayors would be voting on an equality resolution ... the body passed the resolution, supporting everything from Employment Non-Discrimination Act to, yes kids, Marriage Equality! WHOOHOO!! (Click here for a complete list of all Passed Proposals -- this one is Resolution #46) No word on whether Mayor Mallory voted for it.

The main thrust of this post is to give you a heads up on the Equal Housing and Employment Act from Equality Ohio, via email:

Finally, a state legislative body in Ohio is going to vote on a pro-equality issue! Tomorrow will be the first time a vote has ever been take in either the House or Senate on a bill that supports LGBT people and our families, rather than does them harm.

We know after three weeks of testimony, some of it compelling, some of it down right odd, that the committee members have been presented strong reasons to pass House Bill 176. We know we have a number of allies on the committee. We also know we have a number of people who are struggling to decide which way they will vote.

We have been told that those who oppose this bill are currently heating up the committee members' phones, potentially weakening their resolve to vote YES.

WE MUST CONTACT THEM AS WELL TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO VOTE YES.

Please take a moment right now to contact our primary targets on the Ohio House of Representatives State Government Committee. We believe these individuals are still considering their vote and could be swayed either way. Please call or email them and urge them to vote yes on HB 176 tomorrow.

Rep. Cheryl Grossman (R-Grove City): (614) 466-9690 district23@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Cliff Hite (R-Findlay): (614) 466-3819 district76@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. David T. Daniels (R-Greenfield): (614) 466-3506 district86@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Gerald L. Stebelton (R-Lancaster): (614) 466-8100 district05@ohr.state.oh.us


The following 2 committee members are unlikely to vote yes; however, we should never give up hope. Please call or email them and ask them to give thought and consideration to protecting all Ohioans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Rep. John Adams (R-Sidney): (614) 466-1507 district78@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Dave Hall (R-Killbuck): (614) 466-2994 district97@ohr.state.oh.us

And finally, please call or email the following committee members who are either sponsors or have said they will vote yes and thank them for their on-going support for HB 176:

Chairperson Ronald Gerberry (D-Austintown) (614) 466-6107 district59@ohr.state.oh.us

Vice Chairperson Matt Lundy (D-Elyria) (614) 644-5076 district57@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Dale Mallory (D-Cincinnati): (614) 466-1645 district32@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Dan Stewart (D-Columbus): (614) 466-1896 district25@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Vernon Sykes (D-Akron): (614) 466-3100 district44@ohr.state.oh.us

Rep. Brian G. Williams (D-Akron): (614) 644-5085 district41@ohr.state.oh.us

DoWhatsRightOhio.com has posted the opponent testimony to the bill -- including a bizarre one from Concerned Women of America that actually argues that the bill creates discrimination. Something about discriminating against people who believe in traditional values? I don't get it either.

See, nothing going on while I'm just being a mild mannered student trying to make it through my summer term.

I promise, starting next week, I'll be back with my over abundance of postings... just make sure you keep your eyes open tomorrow. I will post about the EHEA the minute I hear. I promise.

Oh, and, finally, I have it on good source that a window at the New Spirit MCC on Hamilton Avenue was broken during Pride, possibly during that time when I and so many others were locked into the Serpent. So that rumor is true, but there's no guarantee that the two incidents -- the broken window and the alleged fighting -- are connected. I have an email out, but have heard nothing official yet.

US Condemns Anti-Gay Violence in Iraq

It's a start, I suppose. It's not "we're out there stopping it from happening," but nice to know the government is aware of the problem, right?

From the Times of India:

"In general, we absolutely condemn acts of violence and human rights violations committed against individuals in Iraq because of their sexual orientation or gender identity," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

"This is an issue that we've been following very closely since we have been made aware of these allegations, and we are aware of the allegations," Kelly told reporters when asked about anti-gay violence in Iraq.

"Our training for Iraqi security forces includes instruction on the proper observance of human rights," Kelly said.

"Human rights training is also a very important part of our and other international donors' civilian capacity-building efforts in Iraq," the spokesman said.

"And the US embassy in Baghdad has raised, and will continue to raise, the issue with senior officials from the government of Iraq, and has urged them to respond appropriately to all credible reports of violence against gay and lesbian Iraqis," Kelly said.

The US Government has been under pressure to address the issue of violence against LGBT individuals in Iraq, which has been gaining bloggie- and mainstream news attention for the past several months, especially after the US embassy in Baghdad announced it would be celebrating Pride month.

Again, I'll point this out ... it's the State Department. Hillary Clinton. I know, a lot of people said, when I made this connection before, that it's still Obama's administration and is done at his behest, likely -- but whose name is getting attached to all this? Is it "Obama has directed the State Department" or "White House Press Secretary today said?" No. It's "Hillary Clinton is doing" and "the State Department is saying." Granted, still "Obama administration," but she will come off with the PR win on these little gains, I believe. And Obama doesn't sully his hands with the gays.

US Supreme Court on DADT

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The government had filed saying that the policy is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Hrm. Ok.

What was fun about this particular case is that, had it gone through, the Obama administration would have had to put forward to the court why it's ok for don't ask, don't tell to be in place, and what legitimate interest the government has in maintaining the policy. That would have been a nasty, brutish, and awful thing the President and his advisors would have had to do, but the Supreme Court is letting the lower court rulings stand. The lower court, btw, simply threw out the case and did not actually rule on it. 

Weird, weirder, and weirdest.

From Pietrangelo:

I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves. It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way Nazi Germany legalized discrimination against Jews... The Supreme Court is not infallible, they get things wrong, and they got it wrong this time."

*snaps fingers* You go, girl! Seriously, go, fight, win!

And call me when you get back, darling, I do love our little chats.

Read LawDork, 2.0's thoughts on the situation.

Obama's "Deal" on DADT?

From the Daily Beast, via every LGBT blog on the web...


In short: Obama has, possibly, made a deal with LGBTQ rights leaders (ahem -- HRC -- ahem) to delay on the repeal on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I don't know if it's true, and it seems far sketckier than I would want to believe, but it's something to think about, innit?

Thinking more about it, I wonder if this is one of those things where Obama said, "You know, we might be able to do that next year, can we focus on something else right now?" Rather than the more evil sounding "deal making." Meanwhile, this is another video that's popped up from yesterday where Obama reassures homosexuals that we have a friend in the White House:

Barack Obama on Pride Month

And the mountain moves. 

Barack Obama today released the following statement celebrating June as Pride Month in the US. Aside from the push for the Matthew Shepard Act, this is the first statement since he became President on LGBT anything:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA

Two things:

1) I cannot find the original source, but have found it one a few blogs, including Queerty. I'll update as soon as I find the source.

2) It comes from a blogger I didn't even know about -- Kevin Lynch at the Examiner. Fabulous. I'll see if the site is blogroll-able.

Still, welcome back Mr. President. See, we just need a word every now and again :-).

Obama gets trumped on LGBT rights

...by Hillary mutha-fuckin' Clinton.

In a time when a lot of people are questioning where Obama is on LGBT issues, and whether we will see the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell (not to mention 100 other things), Mrs. Clinton stands up and does something amazing:

"Like all families, our foreign service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad," Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association.

"At bottom," the paper quotes Clinton as saying, "the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do."

A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, but did not say when it would take effect, the paper said.

Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages, according to the report.

I wonder who gets the credit for this one -- is it an Obama win or is it a Clinton win? Or, more importantly, is it a win for the couples?

I'm amazed :-). Yea. Look, things are getting done.

Pres. Obama, Don't Fire Dan (or anyone else)

The Courage Campaign, more famous for its work in California especially after the passage of Proposition 8, has begun an online petition to Obama asking him to stop the firing of LGBT soldiers, a cause that has recently been made famous thanks to Lt. Dan Choi's personal outing on the Rachel Maddow Show:

Lt. Dan Choi, from Orange County, California, is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and an Iraq War veteran. Last March he went on Rachel Maddow's show and spoke three truthful words: "I am gay."

As a result Lt. Choi received a letter from the Army on April 23 discharging him for violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He told Rachel Maddow the letter was "a slap in the face" to himself and the soldiers he as commanded and served with over the past decade.

Lt. Choi is fighting to stay in the military and ensure that no other soldier is ever again discharged as a result of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile are joining his effort to secure equality in our armed forces.

President Obama did not create this policy. But he now has the opportunity to keep his promise and allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military. It's the right thing to do -- for justice and for national security.

There has been some speculation that the President, unable to end the policy due to a need for Congressional action, may be able to suspend the discharges pending administrative review... an action he as yet refuses to take. So far, over 130,000 individuals have signed the petition -- including yours truly.

I think, probably per his plan, Lt. Choi has become the lightning rod necessary to draw national attention and activism to this outdated policy and Obama's ongoing silence on the issue. And to those saying there is a process that has to happen ... at some point, the process has to go away in favor of the rights and livelihoods of the individuals that process is supposed to protect.

In other DADT news, an 18 year veteran of the Air Force (Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach) is also being discharged for his sexual orientation, while another Air Force major's lawsuit is moving forward against the military's policy -- which may force the US Government to lay out the reasons why it finds LGBT soldiers so harmful to service.

I think that's a court case I would like to see.

And more on DADT

The waffling continues. Thanks to Gay News Bits:

Asked on Tuesday if the White House would consider halting gay discharges by presidential authority, press secretary Robert Gibbs said it would not stop the firing of gay troops.

That said, Gibbs insisted that the President believes that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “isn’t working for our national interests” and that he “will work with the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the administration and with Congress” to change the policy.

In recent weeks, the President’s national security team has sent mixed messages. Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke of what action would occur “if” the policy were repealed, suggesting it may not be; and national security advisor James Jones said this weekend he was not sure if the ban would be lifted.

This appears to be a direct message to all current LGBTQ armed service members: as of right now, you will still be discharged if you come out. Sorry, Lt. Dan Choi, it seems you will, indeed, be fired. The news comes on the back of the Palm Center releasing a study by legal experts stating that yes, in fact, Pres. Obama could end Don't Ask, Don't Tell with an executive order.

I think I'm just about out of commentary on this particular topic. That's ok, though, because Andrew Sullivan said it better:

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs gave non-answer after non-answer on civil unions and Obama's clear campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; non-answer after non-answer on the military's remaining ban on honest servicemembers. What was once a categorical pledge is now - well let's call it the toilet paper that it is. I spent yesterday trying to get a better idea of what's intended on all fronts, and the overwhelming sense - apart from a terror of saying anything about gay people on the record - is that we are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more.

Whoa dude. Whoa.

AfterElton's Top 100 Hottest Men

AfterElton released yesterday the results of their poll of topp 100 hottest men as chosen by GBQ men. Who tops the list?

1. Neil Patrick Harris

2. John Barrowman

3. Luke MacFarlane

4. Jake Gyllenhaal

5. Jensen Ackles

Actually, no real surprises on the list, though I think I'm a little intrigued by NPH at the top. This year, though, After Elton added three new options to vote on. The winners in the category are:

Hottest Men Over 40: Brad Pitt
Hottest Out Gay Men: Neil Patrick Harris (actually, the top three on this
list are in the top 5 hottest)
Hottest Men of Color: Taye Diggs

Plenty of eye candy for you folks this morning. Each list is worth a glance over, with a few surprises (Barack Obama makes it onto one of the lists!), but mostly just pretty boys to drool over.

On DADT

Elaine Donnelly from the Center for Military Readiness on George Stephanopoulos's suggestion that Obama should suspend enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Any presidential order or Defense Department directive disregarding the law, handed down for reasons of political expediency, would constitute a serious, perhaps irreparable breach of faith with men and women who volunteer to serve. An imperious presidential challenge to congressional authority on a matter as important as this would erode relationships and good will, and give rise to constitutional questions. History shows that in conflicts with Congress, presidents do not win...

If Obama issues an order suspending enforcement of the law, it would be perceived by the troops and the nation as an evasion of his oath to ‘faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States.' Having taken this oath, presidents do not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. Congress is now on notice, and members are not likely to accept presidential circumvention of a law that protects our military, a statute that federal courts have upheld as constitutional several times...

If President Obama ignores the respectful recommendations of the retired flag officers and devotes more attention to civilian gay activists, he will inadvertently weaken bonds of trust that must exist between a Commander- in-Chief and the troops he leads. Military experts call this ‘vertical cohesion,' an essential element of military culture that is as important for morale as ‘horizontal cohesion,' the bonds of trust among military personnel who rely on each other for survival.

All this on the backs of deafening silence from Obama, a recent suggestion that he may be considering a repeal effort, and a statement from Barney Frank that they may not have the votes in Congress to repeal DADT.

What a strange world we live in.

Demands for Obama to Act Grow

Three things on the web this weekend have caught my eye that feed into the "Obama needs to say something" line growing around the blogosphere.

First, a Washington Post editorial by Eugene Robinson asks about the semantics of marriage. He takes politicians (and Obama) to task for the language games they are playing:

Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise...

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal [of DOMA] mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

Second, a POZ online poll shows that 60% of the readers of that site don't feel that the Obama administration has made HIV/AIDS a high enough priority. As of right now, I cannot think of a major thing the Obama administration has done except to get his act together, put a couple of people into positions, and offered to expand PEPFAR (which there's some controversy over an unfunded mandate there).

Third, there's the Lt. Dan Choi situation. Choi came out on the Rachel Maddow show and was then sent a letter from his employer stating that he would be terminated. "Obama to fire gay soldier" is the headline developing. But Obama has to go through Congress to change the law, you might say. Or, he could put a stop on discharges pending review of the law.

Look, I still support the man. I still believe that he has our best interests at heart, and I honestly believe that, 100 days in, we can't be so quick to judge his actions. And he has even assured Joe Solmonese of the HRC enough to say, "They have a vision. They have a plan." As little as I like the HRC, I'm going to take his word for it. Let's see how the next 100 days go, let's see what happens with the Matthew Shepard Act, let's see what happened in NH...

...I just hope I'm not saying "well, let's see" all the way to 2012. 

When will Obama say anything?

Via UPI: 

U.S. President Barack Obama, taking an apparently cautious approach, is reported under mounting pressure to act on gay issues, associates and observers say.

There is a flood of gay and lesbian issues facing the president amid what The New York Times calls "a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change."

The wide range of concerns vary from same-sex marriage to hate crimes to more financing to combat AIDS to a possible gay person for the Supreme Court to succeed the retiring Justice David Souter.

I think we're all kind of asking the same question: will he say anything? Now, to his credit, he has put several LGBT individuals into high-ranking positions within the White House staff, and he did push for the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act...

...but he has been content with pushing DADT back (there has even been a soldier who came out on the Rachel Maddow show to bring national attention to it -- he was later fired from the military) via Robert Gates, has not made comments on any of the marriage issues, and then there was that whole hubbub over his website.

However, given the option between the first hundred days of Clinton's Presidency (which ushered in DADT), Clinton's Presidency (DOMA), or the entire Bush administration (FMA)... I think I'll still stick with Obama.

At least he admits we exist and thinks something should be done... just not sure what yet, apparently.

My Prediction on DC

Based off a news article on Yahoo! News...

The only way the DC vote to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions can be stopped once the Mayor signs it is intervention by Congress. To overturn the laws set forward by the City of Washington, DC would require a vote by both House and Senate, and then signed on by the President.

My prediction: this will not happen. It will break down as such:

• Obama: Continue to remain silent -- he has not commented on any of this yet. We are all pretty sure he has no problem with marriage privately, but has publically only supported civil unions and the repeal of the 1996 Federal DOMA. By saying nothing, he registers as a "no vote," thus not angering conservatives by celebrating the marriages, and not angering the liberals by coming off as half-hearted.
• House: A far-right wing Representative (from the South, perhaps?) will introduce the bill, but the House leadership will never let it see the light of day. Pelosi is all ready saying that they have bigger things to deal with and wrangling over simple recognition is not on their plate. This is a political win for both parties, for the reason stated above. The Republicans, especially in the Midwest, are starting to realize that they will win no friends and gain little more support by coming off as anti-gay, and they can play it off like they have been -- "it's the right of the elected officials to make those decisions, and not ours to intervene."
• Senate: Likely, nothing will even come up. Senators will be too dignified to bother with it, even if they are privately fuming,

What may happen, and the situation that I'm excited to see: the DC Council proposes and passes marriage equality, bringing same-sex couples from all over the country to the front door of the US government to get married... then some fast-thinking activist starts redirecting the newly wed couples towards their local Senator/Representative, marriage certificates in hand, and demanding the repeal of DOMA.

In my head, marriage equality in DC should be the next step.

But, people rarely listen to me on these things.

Obama's First 100 on LGBT Issues: D-

From Emma Ruby-Sachs at the Huffington Post:

But 70% of LGBT voters came out in support of Barack Obama because they expected that the support for equal rights expressed on the campaign trail would result in action for LGBT people once Obama was in office.

And when it comes to actual change in the lives of LGBT people, nothing has been done. Obama has failed to hand in any of his assignments.

The gay rights agenda is clear: pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that adds LGBT Americans to the list of protected groups in existing hate crime legislation; pass the United American Families Act that permits committed LGBT couples to sponsor their foreign partners into the country; repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples even if they are married; pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would protect employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; and repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, a policy that forces many service members to forego relationships or live part of their lives in secret in order to avoid discharge from the military.

This is just the fight for legal equality. It says nothing of funding and support for programs that target at-risk youth (1 in 3 gay youths have attempted suicide), public awareness campaigns that promote tolerance and social services - specifically health services - that cater to the LGBT community.

Obama has permitted Secretary Gates to indicate that repealing DADT may never happen. He has merely pledged to sign ENDA and the hate crimes bill, but has done nothing to actively campaign for them. And repealing DOMA isn't even on the radar.

Nancy Pelosi tells us that Congress, and the President, have their hands full with, "health care, energy and the issues related to the economy." And it's true that LGBT people are also citizens who care about the same things most Americans care about: health care coverage, good jobs, a healthy planet.

But we expect the government to be able to multi-task.

We reject the notion that Obama's political power and political capital are all used up by getting this country in basic working order...

Class Participation (30%): B+
Class Assignments (70%): F
Overall Grade: D -

Something to think about for your morning. 

On the flip side, if Obama does sign the Matthew Shepard Act, he will be the first President -- I believe -- to sign a pro-LGBT bill that has nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. Am I right?

Thanks to Journey with Janelle.

Matthew Shepard Act Vote in House TODAY

Have you called yet? Now is the time, if you haven't. E-mail, if you have to, in support of federal hate crimes protections.

The House of Representatives votes today on the Matthew Shepard Act (HR 1913). Hold you breath, kids... 10 years later, it may finally be done.

This is all over the web this morning, thanks to Bilerico for the complete statement from Pres. Obama yesterday:

This week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance - legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association. I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action."

A question: will this be the first time a President something pro-gay into law outside of HIV/AIDS?

Plans for High Speed Rail in the US

Pres. Obama announced, along with the US Department of Transportation, plans to build the foundlings of a high speed-rail system here in the United States, much the same as we see in European countries and Japan.

From the New York Times:

With clogged highways and overburdened airports, economic growth is suffering, Mr. Obama said at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, shortly before leaving for a trip to Mexico and then Trinidad and Tobago.

“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,” he said, “a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”

And he added, “There’s no reason why we can’t do this.”

Mr. Obama said the $8 billion for high-speed rail in his stimulus package — to be spent over two years — and an additional $1 billion a year being budgeted over the next five years, would provide a “jump start” toward achieving that vision.

Now, my only criticism is that there seem to be some major, obvious gaps in the system (pictured above -- click here for the big picture). They have set up hubs, where the tracks are concentrated, but they are not connected to each other. I suppose there's an argument to be made that the current plans cross no mountains because I think the Pittsburgh to Cleveland (or Columbus) route would not be that terribly more expensive to build, were it not for those pesky Appalachians.

I would also like to see a Cincinnati-Louisville-Lexington-Nashville-Atlanta route, and possibly a more extensive (if empty-ish) route through the Southwest. But, I suppose, the good argument there is that there are few cities and, if you are traveling cross country, how good is going 100mph when you could fly for what may be the same price?

I wonder how the airlines are going to take the announcement?