• Hiding – and ‘Professionalism’

    Hiding – and ‘Professionalism’

    Some simple, moving words from Andrew Sullivan, in response to the National Review’s Rich Lowry: Rich says that it’s no big...
  • What Shelby Meant

    What Shelby Meant

    From The Wall Street Journal, Republican Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby’s statement regulatory reform impasse [with my comments italicized within the...
  • Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Obama’s Sights

    Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Obama’s Sights

    New at Metro Weekly, “Obama Slams Ugandan Bill,” my article on today’s National Prayer Breakfast and other developments related to...
  • DADT: Coming to an End?

    DADT: Coming to an End?

    This week’s Metro Weekly will be featuring a cover package about the future of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  “The Final...
  • Garrison Drops

    Garrison Drops

    Democratic Ohio state Rep. Jennifer Garrison announced this afternoon that she is no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for Ohio...
  • D.C. Marriage’s Utah Foe

    D.C. Marriage’s Utah Foe

    In Metro Weekly — “Utah Congressman Takes Aim at D.C.” — I take a look at U.S. Rep. Josh Chaffetz’s...

Hiding – and ‘Professionalism’

Some simple, moving words from Andrew Sullivan, in response to the National Review’s Rich Lowry:

Rich says that it’s no big deal to live hiding one’s sexual orientation. If you’re straight, try it for one day.

Try never mentioning your spouse, your family, your home, your girlfriend or boyfriend to anyone you know or work with – just for one day. Take that photo off your desk at work, change the pronoun you use for your spouse to the opposite gender, guard everything you might say or do so that no one could know you’re straight, shut the door in your office if you have a personal conversation if it might come up.

Try it. Now imagine doing it for a lifetime. It’s crippling; it warps your mind; it destroys your self-esteem.

Lowry talked about this in the context of a debate with Ana Marie Cox about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Although Ana and Andrew rightly aim at Lowry’s “if they just didn’t talk about it” point, it’s important to look at the view that Lowry holds on the purpose of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  He told Ana, “It was just to ensure that they served with a quiet dignity in keeping with military standards and professionalism.”

A law mandating forced silence about one’s sexual orientation — with penalties if a soldier failed to stay silent — was the only way to ensure gays and lesbians would serve with “quiet dignity” and “professionalism.”

Although Ana got Rich to say that he “would agree on repealing that law” insofar as it allows for investigations of servicemembers’ sexual orientation, it’s striking that Lowry would hold the view that a charitable interpretation of the law is that it was the only way to ensure that lesbian and gay soldiers would serve with dignity.

If he disagreed with that purpose, he would have been saying to repeal the law from the start of the conversation.  But he didn’t.  At that point in the conversation, he was basically making the “the law’s fine, it’s the implementation that’s been bad” argument.

So, thanks to Ana and Andrew for calling out Lowry on the simplistic notion that hiding your sexual orientation is simple, but Lowry also should be held to account for his view that the law was needed to keep gays in the military acting professionally.

Popularity: 1% [?]

What Shelby Meant

Sen. Shelby (R-AL)

Sen. Shelby (R-AL)

From The Wall Street Journal, Republican Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby’s statement regulatory reform impasse [with my comments italicized within the brackets]:

“There are two bedrock principles on which I will not compromise [the propriety of my language hides the brazenness of my actions]: the safety and soundness of the financial system [at least the safety and soundness of my now-unimaginably generous corporate contributors] and taxpayer protection against bailouts [unless Airbus needs a bailout]. I fully support enhancing both consumer protection [ha, I don't know how lightning didn't just strike me dead there] and safety and soundness regulation [see above, and by regulation, I mean free-market pillaging of the savings of consumers]. I will not support a bill [why we don't just end it here, I'll never know] that enhances one at the expense of the other, however. [Yes, I pretty much just said I won't support any consumer protections that make banks less money.] In order to strike the appropriate balance they must be integrated with each other, not separated from each other. [And by integrated, I mean, EVEN BIGGER. Why, for example, don't banks also own airlines? Like, say Bank of Airbus?]

“Consumer protection is not the only issue that remains unresolved. [So long as consumers have ANY protections, that whole deal is unresolved, IMHO.] We must craft a resolution regime that ensures taxpayers will never again bear the losses for risks taken in the private marketplace. [See, I am not a FCINO, Carly! Please don't send the demon sheep after me!!!] I will not agree to any legislation until I am satisfied this goal [of no regulation with no consumer protections] is also achieved.

“I remain hopeful that a bipartisan agreement can be reached on these [absurd, hostage-holding demands] and other outstanding issues, including derivatives regulation [none] and corporate governance [none]. I remain willing to work with Chairman Dodd to see whether that is possible [natch].”

Thank you, and enjoy your #snomageddon!

Popularity: 3% [?]

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Obama’s Sights

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. (Photo by Mandel Ngan via AFP/Getty Images.)

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. (Photo by Mandel Ngan via AFP/Getty Images.)

New at Metro Weekly, “Obama Slams Ugandan Bill,” my article on today’s National Prayer Breakfast and other developments related to the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill:

President Barack Obama took the setting of the National Prayer Breakfast – an annual Washington event that has drawn criticism from several quarters this year due to its sponsorship by The Fellowship, aka The Family – to strongly denounce the proposed “Anti-Homosexuality Bill” currently being considered in Uganda as ”odious.”

Obama told the assembled national and international figures today, Feb. 4, ”We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary [Clinton] mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.”

Also in the article, I mention that “Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution condemning the proposed Ugandan bill, which calls for the execution of gays in some circumstances. Sexual relations between members of the same gender are already illegal in that country.” I have made a copy of the resolution available here (pdf) at Law Dork.

Popularity: 2% [?]

DADT: Coming to an End?

Me, Maddow and Maddow's assistant at the hearing. (Photo from Manuel Balce Ceneta via AP.)

Me, Maddow and Maddow's assistant at the hearing. (Photo from Manuel Balce Ceneta via AP.)

This week’s Metro Weekly will be featuring a cover package about the future of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  “The Final Push” is my main story in the package, looking at Tuesday’s Senate hearing (attended by, among others, Rachel Maddow):

The decision of whether gays and lesbians should serve openly in the military strikes at the core of the integrity of the military itself. The top military advisor to President Barack Obama told senators on Tuesday, Feb. 2, that the integrity of the institution is harmed when soldiers are forced ”to lie about who they are” — a dramatic change from the comments of military leaders when the matter was last considered by Congress in 1993.

It was a striking moment as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, evenly and forcefully explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee what steps the Pentagon would take to bring an end to the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that came from the 1993 hearings.

Still, despite the statement from Mullen — supported by a similar statement from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates — many advocates pushing for repeal of the policy left Tuesday’s hearing with more questions than answers.

Read more, and be sure to check out the excellent cover illustration done by Scott Brooks over at Metro Weekly.

Also, the sidebar on the views of the local senators, “Webb Noncommittal on DADT Repeal,” is up as well.

And, for some background on the two men selected to lead the Pentagon working group looking into how to implement a repeal — Jeh Johnson, the general counsel for the Department of Defense, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. Army Europe — see my “Just the Facts” sidebar.

[UDPATE: Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell said today that he "fully supports" the process advanced by Adm. Mullen and Secretary Gates on Tuesday.  A lot more is happening here than chipping away at the wall.  This is bulldozing.]

Popularity: 4% [?]

Garrison Drops

Garrison

Garrison

Democratic Ohio state Rep. Jennifer Garrison announced this afternoon that she is no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for Ohio Secretary of State, the position currently held by Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Jennifer Brunner.

On her Facebook page, she wrote:

I would like to thank all of the wonderful people in Ohio that supported me in my campaign over the last 6 months for Secretary of State. I announced today that I am no longer seeking that office, but will always be working to help the people of this region and state.

Marc Kovac broke the news this afternoon, announcing that she would not be seeking the Sec of State nomination or to retain her House seat.  Ohio Daily Blog has Garrison’s full statement.

Garrison’s views on LGBT and choice issues had caused quite a stir both upon her entrance to the race and when Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown dropped out of the race.  Of Garrison’s entrance in the race, I wrote at the time:

Ohio is not a liberal state, by any means, but I’m still not sure that Garrison can win a statewide Democratic primary in 2010.  If anything, Garrison’s announcement may have been the best way either to drive up interest in Brown — or to lead some other Democrats to consider jumping in the race.

Not quite, but . . .

Right now, it looks like the leading options to replace Garrison are Sharen Neuhardt, who fared poorly in her 2008 U.S. House race against U.S. Rep. Steve Austria when all other Democrats in Ohio had enormous success, and Franklin County Clerk of Courts Mary Ellen O’Shaughnessy, who lost two races for Franklin County Commissioner (1992 & 2002) and a run at Congress in 2000.  The Cleveland Scene reported earlier this week that Neuhardt has taken out petitions for the race.  [UPDATE: Multiple people are reporting to me that O'Shaughnessy is making the phone rounds today, letting people know that she, too, is in the race.  The Dispatch more or less reported this as a "soon-to-be fact" on Friday.]

My question is simple: Why either of these people?  As Marilyn Brown has amply proven, it’s not enough to be a progressive.

Particularly when entering the race this late — relative to, say, the long-raging U.S. Senate battle — the Democratic replacement for this race needs to stand out if he or she is to have any real shot at defeating the Republican, former House Speaker Jon Husted.  I see one of two ways that this could work: (1) The person has a name that Ohioans know, someone who starts out with some name recognition to go after Husted with some power from the very start, or (2) the person is an “outsider” who can enter the race with non-political credibility for the job in a way that would depoliticize the Democratic side of the race against Husted.

My pick for 1 would be attorney John Gilligan (bio), who I understand from several people already has considered the race.  My pick for 2 would be Ohio State Law Professor Dan Tokaji (bio), author of the Equal Vote blog and someone who I know personally and greatly respect.  I’ve not spoken with either person about the race.  They are emblematic of my views on the type of candidate Democrats need to compete in this race in light of today’s news.  There may be others who fit the bill.

Thoughts?

Popularity: 7% [?]

D.C. Marriage’s Utah Foe

Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT)

Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT)

In Metro Weekly — “Utah Congressman Takes Aim at D.C.” — I take a look at U.S. Rep. Josh Chaffetz’s effort to stop the District’s efforts at marriage equality:

The ranking Republican member of the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia filed legislation on Tuesday, Jan. 26, disapproving of the District’s passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. According to the District’s own delegate in Congress, however, the bill will not be moving forward.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), introduced the bill as the first formal step in the congressional process for overturning the marriage-equality bill passed by the District of Columbia in December 2009. In order to be overturned, Chaffetz’s bill would need to be passed by both the House and the Senate – where no such bill has been introduced – and signed by the president.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Obama Talks About ‘Gay and Lesbian Couples’

barack_obama

Obama

Today, President Obama gave some of the most extensive and supportive statements I’ve ever seen him make on the specifics of LGBT relationship equality.  At a town hall in Tampa, Fla., the following exchange took place:

Q    All right, I’m Hector and I’m a student at UT.  (Applause.)  And my question is, last night you talked about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and my question is what are you doing now to put in motion so that same-sex couples and homosexuals are treated as equal citizens of the United States, i.e., same-sex marriages and the thousand-plus benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy after marriage?  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are.  (Applause.)  I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples.  So at the federal level, one of the things that we’re trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.

I think that we’ve got to — we actually have an opportunity of passing a law that’s been introduced in Congress right now, and my hope is this year we can get it done, just for federal employees and federal workers.  A lot of companies, on their own, some of the best-run companies have adopted these same practices. I think it’s the right thing to do and it makes sense for us to take a leadership role in ensuring that people are treated the same.  (Applause.)

Look, if you are — regardless of your personal opinions, the notion that somebody who’s working really hard for 30 years can’t take their death benefits and transfer them to the person that they love the most in the world and who has supported them all their lives, that just doesn’t seem fair.  It doesn’t seem right.  (Applause.)  And I think it’s the right thing to do.

This appears to encompass both the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act being pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), which he specifically notes in the second paragraph of his answer, as well as the Respect for Marriage Act, which is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Obama’s LGBT Mention – and the Response it Brings

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010. (Photo from White House Web site.)

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010. (Photo from White House Web site.)

My article, “A Nation’s Priorities,” addressing the inclusion of and reaction to LGBT issues in tonight’s State of the Union Address is up at Metro Weekly:

Noting that one in 10 Americans are without work and that millions will lose their health insurance this year, President Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night. It wasn’t, however, until the closing minutes of the speech that the man who said that he would be a ”fierce advocate” for LGBT equality mentioned any legislative issue specific to that equality.

In his third address to a joint session of Congress, Obama focused, for the first two-thirds of the speech, on the nation’s economic and employment problems. The latter portion of the speech was primarily dedicated to foreign affairs issues.

Early in his speech, though, the President referenced a letter he had received from a woman who very well might have been the voice of the LGBT community, as she wrote, ”We are strained, but hopeful.”

Read on at Metro Weekly.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Rep. Polis Brings Education Equality Bill to the House

Rep. Polis (D-CO) (Image from Polis House Web site.)

Rep. Polis (D-CO) (Image from Polis House Web site.)

At Metro Weekly, I discuss, in “A Higher Education,” the bill today introduced by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) to prohibit discrimination and harassment in primary and secondary public schools:

Citing “relentless harassment and discrimination” and “life-threatening violence” faced by students “based on their sexual orientation,” U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) today introduced the Student Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit such discrimination, as well as that based on gender identity, in public schools in the United States.

The bill would require that no student in public schools be “excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” based on the student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill also would prohibit harassment based on either characteristic.

The bill protects LGBT allies as well, prohibiting discrimination based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the people with whom a student associates.

Read more at Metro Weekly.

Popularity: 6% [?]

My Hopes for the State of the Union

barack_obama

President Obama

Everyone is preparing for tonight’s State of the Union, and as the day goes on stakes are being discussed and raised on the potential for — and what is looking like the content of — of President Obama’s mention of the future of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the speech.

As possibilities for LGBT inclusion are discussed, I just wanted to note my ideal three elements for mention about DADT:

  • Obama will discuss ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as an idea whose time is past due and the implementation of which advances the national security.
  • Obama will announce the results of the Pentagon’s investigation into better ways of implementing DADT until legislative repeal, including several of the steps supported by the Palm Center’s recommendations on the matter (specifically, dealing with third-party statements and affirmative investigations where first-hand evidence is not present).
  • Obama will announce that he will be submitting language repealing DADT in his Defense budget this Spring.

Also, though it has been the focus, it is important to remember that more than DADT is on the table.  If Obama’s State of the Union is going to be focused on jobs, I’d expect workplace fairness — and a mention of the need for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act without delay.

Finally, although I’m not going to write about the other areas, it always important to remember that many non-LGBT issues — from health care reform to job creation — impact LGBT people in the same (and sometimes different) ways as they do others.  For some people, depending on their current situation, those pieces of Obama’s speech might just be more important right now.

These aren’t predictions or a preview.  They’re just my vision for what I would see as ideal action from the President on those issues this evening.  As someone else told me earlier this week, “My prediction for the SOTU:  I’ll be watching it.”

Popularity: 8% [?]

  • Support Law Dork!
  • chrisgeidner @ Twitter