I hate to say the opera’s over, because the U.S. Senate can literally fuck anything up, but it seems now almost certain that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be toast by Christmas.  The standing Republican filibuster on it was finally taken back, and now they can have an up or down vote on the bill.

There is very little good news lately, and most of it is due to the Senate becoming this hellish place where government goes to die.  It’s nice to see one decent thing happen despite all this. 

But don’t worry, people who hate the hope that America could ever actually become a better place.  I’m about 99% certain that any attempt at rules changes at the start of the next session that would make it harder to impossible for Republicans to kill basically any and all legislation of any importance will fail pretty quickly. 

Today, though, I want to offer my congratulations to everyone who has worked tirelessly for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and for the chance of GLBT service members to serve with the pride they deserve. 

Because I’m not gay.  At the beginning of the project, I thought that the input of straight people was not necessary, as the project was about GLBT adults telling teenagers that the message that they’re getting—-from peers, from adults, from right wing media, from churches—-that they aren’t good enough and will die lonely and afraid is a straight lie.  It’s a common lie, of course.  In the Christian right, it’s an article of faith that gay men die when they’re 40, just from the gayness, and no one ever loves them.  Kids who are brought up on a steady stream of this shit often understandably despair.  The point of the project was to say that even if you’re being horribly bullied now, hang on, because the lies that people tell you are lies.  And that the truth is there is a world outside of your immediate one where you can actually live a normal life. 

Straight people, I figured, don’t have a place in that message.  I never had any doubts when I was being bullied for being bookish, nerdy and unathletic* in high school that I would have a normal life, with all the attendant privileges of being straight.  I never thought I would never find love or acceptance.  I never believed my family would turn me out.  On the contrary—-nerds find a lot of larger social support in the world.  There are countless books, TV shows, and movies that promote the myth that the nerds in high school bloom into the adults who own the world, and then they get to go back to their high school reunions and enjoy being hot, smart, and accomplished while their former bullies sulk in the corner, their glory days behind them.  You can focus on life after high school easily when you’re a nerd.  College is right around the corner, where nerdiness, you’re routinely assured, is rewarded.  Being nerdy =/ being gay.  A lot of gay kids have no one telling them there’s a corner to turn, and that it gets better.  The role of allies is to be vocal supporters, cheerleaders, analysts, and fighters.  But it is not to claim to share the same experiences.

This, by the way, is why examining your privilege is not the great evil wingnuts make it out to be.  It’s true that some liberals turn it into a self-flagellation spectacle that helps no one, but leaving that nonsense aside, it’s good to know where you stand.  Makes you think about things like, “I’m not going to clutter this up with my pointless retroactive self-pity that I’ve encountered people who don’t like me.” 

But I will say that when straight people started to get involved, I relented a little on this, though not enough to think my contribution was necessary.  It’s nice to watch the videos where straight people do good ally work, which is to say they lay into homophobes for promoting the message that gay people aren’t good enough.  Sarah Silverman did this, for instance.  That message—-that this is not just the fault of bullies, but also of churches, pundits, authority figures, whoever promotes homophobia—-is necessary.  It’s probably not bad for gay kids to see that the world they’re growing up into is one that has straight people who have no problem with homosexuality.  So, I was okay with that.

What I’m not okay with is sharing your own, irrelevant stories of bullying.  Gabriel Arana describes this problem perfectly:

Indeed, the wave of B-list celebrities and straight liberals making “It Gets Better” videos just keeps growing. But there’s a problem: As the discussion about gay-teen suicide has radiated outward, it’s stopped being about gay teens. Kim Kardashian has a video relaying how hurt she was at online comments calling her fat. Ezra Klein’s video discusses how he was called a nerd in high school. Even Obama’s video steers clear of too much talk about gay people, safely focusing on the hurt that comes with “being different or ... not fitting in with everybody else.” The public conversation and the policy response have shifted from stopping anti-gay harassment to preventing bullying in general.

In turn, this has allowed homophobic adults off the hook.  All they have to say is that they object to the narrow behavior of shoving kids into lockers, and then feel free to go back to saying, “Gay people will never be loved, will die at 40, are evil perverts, and don’t deserve rights.”  To their children.  Some of whom are gay and hear that they are defective and should just give up.

So, no.  It’s not about bullying in schools.  It’s about homophobia, and bullying is just one expression of that.

I do think there’s an important public dialogue to be had about bullying, don’t get me wrong.  But this isn’t really the hook to hang that on. 

*I want to update this to make it clear I’m not trying to pick on anyone who was trying to do their best to empathize by relating homophobic abuse to other kinds kids face.  People who pick on you for reading too much aren’t unaware that they’re full of shit, and that being anti-reading will end up hurting them more in the end. 

Rachel Maddow did this extremely convincing report last night on how the Obama administration is setting themselves up to let DADT go on for years with their current strategy of ruthlessly pushing for enforcement while pleading with the Senate to overturn it.  You know, even though they have the tools at hand—-simply not appealing this federal decision—-to make DADT go away tomorrow.  What was going through my head the entire time was, “Is the administration being stupid or arrogant?”  The facts seem indisputable.  When was the last time the Senate actually passed a bill that explicitly guaranteed equality for a minority group that was being routinely bagged on in public forums?  Maybe you could say Lilly Ledbetter, but that was more of a smaller bill shoring up pre-existing rights—-rights that even hard right pundits are often loathe to attack.  (Instead of arguing openly that women should be paid less, they just impugn women’s abilities, and suggest unequal pay reflects that.)  But something on this level?  I’d have to say that the closest is the Voting Rights Act of 1965? If I’m wrong, please let me know.  I’m curious. 

Either way, the possibility that the current administration could round up votes, LBJ-style, is fucking laughable.  There’s a couple of reasons. The first being that Republicans in the Senate are obviously not interested in working with the President, and that goes double on this issue.  They have made it clear they’ll kill defense spending before they allow this.  They’re not being reasonable.  Second of all, Obama is no LBJ, for better or for worse.  You’re not particularly afraid that he’s going to break your knees if you don’t play ball with him.  He’s offered no real leadership on this issue, in direct contrast to LBJ.  He’s like the anti-LBJ. 

Which I tend to believe is his choice—-he actually seems to buy the Beltway wisdom that you shield yourself from right wing criticism by going through certain channels.  I suspect he actually thinks letting the courts handle this one will put it in a place where Roe v. Wade never got, which is calcified in the common wisdom.  He’s wrong on this.  People don’t hate the courts.  They hate gays.  Hating on the courts is just a cover story for that.  If Congress had legalized abortion, anti-choicers would be just as mean and ugly.  This Beltway common wisdom is for crap. 

So, are they arrogant or stupid in thinking this brilliant “let the Senate do it instead of simply instructing the Justice Department to let it go”?  The one thing they need to understand is the longer they let this question linger, the more option #3 seems possible—-that the Obama administration is homophobic and actually supports DADT, despite their protests.

Take, for instance, Valerie Jarrett calling a gay teenager’s orientation a “lifestyle choice”.  (She’s since apologized.)  That’s not the sort of thing that’s going to quell suspicions that the administration is doing the wrong thing by gay people because of some procedural bullshit but because they don’t like gay people.  What it’s going to do is ramp up suspicions that they don’t give a shit how this actually affects the fighting men and women in uniform who have to live lies, because they think that all you have to do to avoid DADT is to choose a different “lifestyle”. 

Just remember this, when the administration is making excuses: just because the Justice Department doesn’t pursue this case doesn’t mean the Senate can’t go ahead and codify the federal judge’s decision into law.

Well, this is incredibly frustrating news to hear about my alma mater.

St. Edward’s University has notified an organization that advocates for the rights of gays and lesbians that it will not be allowed to participate in an upcoming nonprofit internship fair because it does not fit in with the university’s Catholic principles.

The university declined a request from Equality Texas to recruit interns at the fair, which is scheduled for the morning of Sept. 15 in Mabee Ballroom. The group was notified of the university’s decision on Aug. 31 in an e-mail from Assistant Director of Campus Ministry Lou Serna.

I can’t help but feel this is a slide backwards.  When I was working in the admissions office, basically all throughout my stint at St. Ed’s, we would occasionally get phone calls from freaked out super conservative parents about GLBT acceptance and how they were against it.  The usual instigating event was thumbing through the school’s materials and finding GLBT organizations listed amongst student groups.  You’d get a frantic phone call, and some higher up had to calm them down.  I’m not sure what the parents thought would happen.  Maybe they think their kids will be bopping along, craving sex with the opposite sex, and then run into a poster advertising for a gay rights groups and boom! Suddenly they’re getting all gay married.  Or maybe they fear that their gay kids will start to believe that they have options and rights, instead of just going into the priesthood and hoping that they can successfully avoid temptation their entire lives. 

Either way,  it’s a huge disappointment to see the university give in to the bigots. Lindsay Marsh, also an alum of St. Ed’s and someone who used to work for Equality Now, replied on their Texas blog:

St. Edward’s mission statement says the university encourages its students to “confront the critical issues of society and to seek justice and peace.”

  * Is equality not a critical issue of society?
  * Is it not critical when Texans can be fired from their jobs simply for identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?
  * Shouldn’t we all seek justice for this intolerance?
  * Is it not critical when employers blatantly discriminate against employees by only providing healthcare to partners who are straight and married?  St. Edward’s University falls into this category.

I’d like to think this was just the actions of a few imperious bigots, but who knows?  When I was a student there, I remember someone writing an angry letter to the editor of the school paper about how he saw lesbians! kissing! in a parked car! by the library!  And how the reaction of pretty much everyone I knew was to pass that letter around and laughing at it.  And how the next week, there were even more letters to the editor calling him out for being such a miserable bigot.  This kind of bigotry is the expression of a few people who need to mind their own damn business, and certainly need to cease activities that result in fewer internship opportunities for students. 

Yesterday I posted about WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah blasting Ann Coulter’s “betrayal” of him regarding the anti-gay “culture wars” by keynoting GOProud‘s HOMOCON. You could almost feel Farah’s raging on the keyboard at other luminaries of the right who are also abandoning the professional anti-gay agenda:

...“Conservative” icon Glenn Beck, in a conversation with Bill O’Reilly, said basically he doesn’t care about the attack on traditional marriage. Asked if the California ruling will harm the country in any way, he responded: “No I don’t. Will the gays come and get us? I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: ‘If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?’”

Rush Limbaugh, the iconic leader of American conservatism, hired the noted homosexual singer Elton John to perform at his wedding. He has not aired one of his bitingly satirical “gay community updates” in years.

“Conservatives,” it seems, are on the verge of not only accepting homosexuality’s domination of the culture, but embracing it.

We can now add Bryan Fischer to the far-right public meltdown. He’s the host of the “Focal Point” radio program on the American Family Radio talk network (one of the arms of Don and Tim Wildmon’s American Family Association). This is a man who actually said that society must “put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program.”

Look at this crazed column, “Coulter, Beck go AWOL in culture war.” The anger-generated spittle is dripping onto his keyboard.

Count Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck as the latest deserters in the culture war and in the battle for sexual normalcy. They have flinched at “precisely that little point which the world and the devil are … attacking,” and so have forfeited the right to consider themselves any longer culture warriors.

Let’s be clear: Endorsing homosexual behavior is not a conservative position, period. Supporting special rights based on aberrant sexual behavior is not conservative, period. Supporting either civil unions or marriages based entirely on using the alimentary canal for sexual purposes is not conservative, period.

You [Ann Coulter] will be received with a standing ovation [at HOMOCON] for pandering to a group that wants to put open homosexuals in the same showers and barracks with sexually normal soldiers (priority No. 4) and is fiercely opposed to any attempt to elevate protection for natural marriage to the Constitution (priority No. 7 – see GOProud website).

...Glenn Beck has completely and shamelessly surrendered on the issue of gay marriage, and did so on Bill O’Reilly’s program, only the most-watched cable news program in all TV land…Even O’Reilly, who is a notorious squish on the subject of the acceptability of homosexual behavior, was taken aback by Beck’s capitulation and rightly accused him of “ignoring the profound change in the American family.”

Folks, we are starting to see real damage to core of the professional homo-hate machine. The fiscal conservative/libertarian lite wing of the GOP, as well as those like Beck and Coulter, who depended on that demo for their meal ticket in the past, sees the legal handwriting on the wall for the social conservatives (aka loonies) and are publicly making a break for the door to more credibility), with the alignment now toward the burgeoning Tea Party wing.

It’s pretty clear that a corner has been turned, with the green light foor Beck and Coulter likely being the 138-page Prop 8 legal ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that decimated the pathetic case presented by the defenders of marriage discrimination. The sorry-ass, religious, culture, and bias-based excuses to prevent opening civil marriage to lesbians and gays couldn’t stand up to the reality-based legal standard, as Olsen and Boies smacked down the so-called “experts” who bothered to show up to testify. Just a peek at Walker’s Findings of Fact alone put those ridiculous arguments completely to bed.

Beck and Coulter, who are thinking about their professional bottom lines, are placing their bets on the legal wind blowing away from the bible-beating theocrat wing of conservatism.

Again, while I can’t always agree with their political positions on issues, credit also has to go to GOProud, which has managed to become a deeply lodged splinter into the social conservative movement in a very short time (the LCR was never this effective). It was first an irritation, and now it’s making the bible-beaters hurt badly if they are taking this infighting public over HOMOCON. Makes we wish I could get up there to cover the event, which is on September 25 in NYC.

GOProud’s Chris Barron recently took The Peter to task over his expected eruption over Coulter’s gig:

“I strongly encourage Mr LaBarbera to head out to his local bookstore, buy an Ann Coulter book and actually read it. For a guy who claims to be a “fan,” he seems completely clueless about what Ann has actually written and said about gay people and gay conservatives.

If Mr. LaBarbera spent less time obsessing about gay sex and hanging out at gay Pride events, maybe he would have a little more time to read one of Ann’s books.”

From Americablog, word that a closed-door meeting with the President, Brian Bond, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and state equality organization leaders generated some interesting comments:

Bond asserted, “There is still a lot of work to do” before DOMA will be repealed. “Look at the trouble we’re having with ENDA.” he added. But Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama’s positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, “Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country.” Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is “99 percent supportive of your issues.” [emphasis added]

I’m kind of nonplussed; does that include your blogmistress, or do lesbian bloggers not rate in the same category of frustration for Brian Bond? I’m the only “gay blogger”  he’s had a sit-down interview with, so I’d love it if he gave a shout-out by name. I was quite generous to him in my interview.

I think perhaps they only mean John Aravosis, no? But Brian used the plural, so the White House must have a LIST. I’ll have to ask John (and maybe even Joe Sudbay) what it feels like to be on a White House hit list.

Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers...

John said this in response to Bond’s comments:

It’s great that you’re “supportive.” But it’s the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they’d say, even if he didn’t help us a whole lot legislatively. I’m not saying you’re George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don’t want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you’re not.

I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold - that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing “study”; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you’re 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.

I can’t quite figure out what the people in the White House really think about new media/citizen journalists/bloggers. The equality orgs got to meet with the President, but Barack Obama has not given an interview to any LGBT media since he took office. That has to be purposeful. He certainly didn’t do a drop in when a few reporters and citizen journalists were invited to meet with Melody Barnes, who is an ally, but still gave little information and would not discuss political matters at all, nor did the WH offer anyone on the political side to attend that meeting. And, you might recall, Brian Bond was in that room, was referenced by name, yet he said not one word during the 58-minute meeting. I did get a bear hug from him, though. Perhaps I’m still not on the SH*T LIST…we have to read between the lines.

Read All...

Since Muslims have decided to piss off conservatives by being Muslim on American soil, the inevitable response has finally come: an extended gay joke. 

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

It goes on, but you get the point.

You see?  People are angry about something a group of Muslims did.  Therefore, it is a perfect and totally proportionate response to do something that you think will totally piss Muslims off, except it’s actually just asinine and completely disingenuous.  It’s like that time your neighbors dropped their leaves on your lawn, so you converted your house into an S&M-themed clothing store called “Fuck 908 Higgins Avenue”.  Totally rational.

Of course, this has resulted in much glee and pun-based hilarity:

And of course, Twitter is getting into the swing of things by naming Greg’s gay bar. Here are some ideas:

Al Gayda — Chuck_Dizzle

The Velvet Sword, Jihard and/or Dome of the Cock — AceofSpades

United 69 — Iowahawkblog

Ba’ath House — DuchessRebecca

Now, I’m not particularly offended that these people are assembling to engage in the world’s biggest gay joke ever, or that they’re juvenile assholes.  This is America - we were founded on the premise that everyone’s allowed to be a juvenile asshole!  Megan McArdle is waiting for the outrage to arise:

I am hoping that at least one person will attempt to explain why we should support the mosque near Ground Zero, but not the gay bar next to the mosque near Ground Zero.  I would find that very entertaining.

I’m sure she would.

Now, if there’s anything wrong with this plan, it’s not a gay bar qua gay bar next to a Muslim community center qua Muslim community center.  It’s that it’s a gay bar qua people who are not gay and don’t particularly like gay people and don’t particularly like Muslims next to a Muslim community center qua Mohameddan obelisk of terror and jihadist victory. 

The plan only works for the builders of the gay bar if they think that Park 51 is being built as a disingenuous effort to piss off specific sensitive groups of people, which makes this simply a mirror effort to (you guessed it) piss off specific sensitive groups of people.  Oddly enough, this makes it eminently worthy of criticism if you believe that the community center is being built for one set of clearly stated reasons and the gay bar would be build for another set of clearly stated reasons that are based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the former set of reasons.  (This isn’t even to mention the fact that another group, gays and lesbians, gets their identity appropriated for a cheap and insulting political stunt.  If it works, the best that’s happened is that a bunch of straight Christian Republicans have made life harder for Muslims, gays and lesbians at no actual risk or harm to themselves.  Well done!)

Personally, I just think if you can get together the money to build a fake gay bar just to piss off a bunch of people who are getting together to take Pilates classes, you’ve got enough money to start an actual business that would make actual money and employ actual employees.  But fuck it, we’re not in a recession, and I know nothing about business.  Fake gay bar it is.

UPDATE: Glenn Beck clip on this under the fold.  Swear to God.

Read All...

There are many parts of Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8 that are delicious reading, but the most interesting part was how Walker repeatedly stressed that marriage had already changed—-that strict gender roles that justified restricted marriage in the past have already gone away.  We all know what he’s talking about: men don’t legally own their wives anymore, no-fault divorce degenders divorce legally, women are allowed to work and men to care for children, the legal restrictions on women’s rights in marriage have mostly fallen away.  Spouses aren’t legally distinct anymore, so there’s no reason to say they have to be different genders. 

This has been an argument in favor of gay rights forever—-the horse of “traditional marriage” has been let out of the barn and shot dead by feminism (thank god; it was a demon horse), so gay marriage doesn’t make a difference.  And legally, they’re right.  But I do think that conservatives aren’t wrong when they fear that legal gay marriage will further erode the practice of traditional marriage.  In fact, in my book Get Opinionated: A Progressive’s Guide to Finding Your Voice (and Taking a Little Action), I address this issue:

The theoretical egalitarian message hasn’t done much to provide for the realistically egalitarian straight marriage.  Yes, heterosexual coupling is far less oppressive than before, but let’s face it: Most dishes in these houses are washed by female hands.  Ninety percent o American wives capitulate to social demands and male egos and rename themselves after their husbands, and even more name the children after their husbands, as if they were the ones that birthed them.

And so on—-buy the book and you can enjoy the jokes that come immediately after!  But the point stands.  The existence of actual same-sex married couples opens up a whole new social definition of what marriage can be, and that is going to influence straight marriages. Over time, you’ll see more straight couples get flexible about their roles, and this will have a cascading effect. Conservatives aren’t wrong about that.  But what they’re wrong about is whether or not that’s a good thing.  (Hint: it is.)

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage raises a great point about today’s Prop 8 ruling. 

By the way, “a great point” is the new street lingo for “a point so appallingly dumb I’m going to go stand in traffic right now”:

Those in power will call it tolerance, they will call it pluralism, but in truth same-sex marriage is a government takeover of an institution the government did not make, cannot in justice redefine, and ought to respect and protect as essential to the common good.

Oh, Mags.  I always hate it when the government stages a takeover of things that it already runs.  It just makes you wish for the good old days when the government simply issued marriage certificates binding people to a defined set of legal obligations enforceable by local and state law.

Prop 8 went down like D-Bo in Friday.

Most readers are well aware of the answer to this question—the Defense of Marriage Act.

Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

And as a result of this disgusting law, states began passing marriage amendments.

As of April 2009, 29 states have enacted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and another 13 states have statutory bans, including Maine, which approved a same-sex marriage law that was repealed by referendum in the United States general elections, 2009.[38]

Kate and I married on July 1, 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. At that time it was the only place we could legally marry in North America. Today, our marriage is recognized in a few states—Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.; the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants same-sex marriage. New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages, but they are not granted.

And then of course, you have the perversion of separate-allegedly-equal civil unions and domestic partnerships, which in theory gives couples (from the perspective of state government) equal legal recognition.

DOMA is clearly unconstitutional from a common sense perspective—there is no sane justification for the fact that when Kate and I get on a plane and fly to New York that we’re married, and when we return to North Carolina we’re not. My state fortunately has not passed a marriage amendment; it does have a state DOMA to ensure our union is not recognized.

Yet my state-issued drivers license is valid in all 50 states

. What’s the difference? It’s really that simple - we’re talking about the culture of marriage, the heterosupremacy, the church/state conflation of marriage. It does NOT help that in the White House sits a president who is a constitutional scholar bleating that “God is in the mix” and that marriage is between a man and a woman. I really don’t care about the political “safety” about this position at this date and time. It’s an absurd position that only underscore what we’ve seen occur over and over—the LGBT community is tossed overboard when it comes to civil rights. The stated positions of this administration always default to pandering toward the bigots, even when those positions fly in the face of common sense. It’s quite sad.

What’s enraging is the Obama administration’s attack on my marriage by using spurious excuses to defend DOMA through the Department of Justice. No one in the administration is willing to answer direct questions about DOMA (and DADT for that matter) related to their constitutionality. For instance, take a look at this exchange between The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

The Advocate: A growing number of people have started to call on the administration not to defend what the president refers to as the “so-called” Defense of Marriage Act – including Steve Hildebrand last week and the Human Rights Campaign, which is the largest LGBT community lobby and, quite frankly, it’s usually fairly favorable toward the administration, so it was a turnaround for them to call on the administration not to defend that law.

The president has called DOMA discriminatory. Does the president believe that a discriminatory law is constitutional?

Robert Gibbs: I don’t… the president hasn’t to the best of my… I have not heard the president intone what he believes the constitutionality of the law is. I know that he believes the law should be changed.

Legal decisions around next steps in that case, I believe, will be made at the Justice Department and I would point you over there to them.

Again, the president believes, in this case, and the president believes in the case of “don’t ask, don’t tell” that those are laws that he has believed for quite some time should be changed.

What kind of answer is that? Reading between the lines, the clear message here is that the administration intends to tap dance around a clear answer until it is forced to by the string of legal cases winding their way to SCOTUS. It’s an embarrassing strategy quite frankly, but as we’ve come to see, this is not an administration we can call a “fierce advocate” based on actions. It talks a good game, but when you have Steve Hildebrand and HRC calling 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue out, this administration is really running out of tap dance time. Hildebrand to Eleveld:

Is there anything you’re disappointed with that you’ve communicated to the administration?
I’m very perplexed on the administration’s continued defense of DOMA in the courts. The Justice Department is not required to defend laws passed by Congress—they have a history of doing it but it’s not a requirement. Their ultimate duty is to defend the Constitution of the United States and if Congress passes a law that is discriminatory and doesn’t pass muster of constitutionality, the Justice Department in my opinion should not defend those laws. In fact, they should find ways to make sure that those laws are stricken down by the courts.

I’d like to see the president and Attorney General Holder announce that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act and to agree with the judge’s findings in the Massachusetts’ court case.

Meanwhile, as we are up in Maine doing a late celebration of our sixth anniversary, our marriage remains a tattered patchwork of civil rights and obligations in this country, and zero rights in our home state.

Our legislators are behind the times when it comes to cultural change on marriage. We live in North Carolina and have not experienced discrimination when introduced as a married couple. Most of the time we’re asked where we got married and whether it is legal—that is, of course, an ice breaker and opportunity to educate people about the fact that we may be married, civil unioned, domestic partners or strangers in the eyes of the law depending on what state we are in. People are usually perplexed, and even in a state with a good level of cultural conservatism, it’s hard to dismiss us as unworthy of rights when it’s a one-to-one conversation with a same-sex couple willing to speak about the issue.

What will it take for our “advocates” to grow a political spine? The religious bigots will be on the wrong side of history. We know this. The White House knows this. Congress knows this. The cultural change is bubbling up by more married same-sex couples who are out and willing to talk about their love, commitment, respect and desire for the same rights and responsibilities as any opposite-sex couple. Yet they have to also speak about their marriages being dismissed by the “most LGBT friendly administration ever” as less-than because of its own cowardice and political homophobia.

All photos save the wedding day pic:

Julie Atwell Photography
On Facebook
347-688-9108

Is there such a thing as a negative IQ? The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck goes for the gold standard. Via The Advocate:

The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck says she knows why lesbians come out later in life: there are simply no available men.

Her theory is that older men tend to date younger women, “leaving older women with no one,” she said.

My question - someone willing to say something so asinine on the air cannot possibly have any close gay or lesbian friends. She needs to invest in rent-a-lez or some such before opening her piehole.

My good friend Joe Sudbay of Americablog and I were interviewed by former Air America radio host Sam Seder while we were at Netroots Nation (you can see me in the background, but my vid isn’t available so far). Joe’s is up, so take a peek.

Also, Joe interviewed Sen. Harry Reid:

AB has a good post up today, “Why didn’t Robert Raben demand that Clinton’s DOJ defend a law seeking to overturn Miranda?”

***

BTW, I also just put up a FB album called NN 2010 The Homosexual Agenda, “An album of activists, bloggers, and allies gathering to collude on how to overthrow the enablers of the equality status quo.”

It’s a stream of photos from one of the parties that Greg Rae of Living Liberally and Mike Rogers, organizer of the National Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative, threw for LGBT bloggers and allies while at Netroots.

It may look like just a party, but think about the LGBT online political power in the room. We’ve been meeting in groups offline for some time, with this conference being one of the most prominent non-LGBT related ones. It dispels the notion that we’re all just a bunch of online armchair critics sitting in Cheetos-stained PJs spouting off. Nearly every person in that room is on the same page strategically (and we know exactly who isn’t), and believe the approaches we are taking are compatible.

Right: With Palm Springs, CA Mayor Steve Pougnet (who is challenging and will defeat Mary Bono Mack), Mike Rogers, Rep. Jared Schutz Polis.

We are human beings who do care about the LGBT and progressive movements, and our roles to play in helping move equality forward. Our progressive colleagues at NN certainly recognized the unprecendented LGBT attendance and cross-pollenation of ideas that Netroots Nation provides, and that we are committed to pushing the envelope. It’s sad we have to with a self-proclaimed LGBT-friendly administration and Congress, but there you have it. Sitting back and waiting for change isn’t cutting it.

And because of the work of Mike Rogers with the National Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative pre-conference this year, we had representation from a wide variety of LGBT Beltway legacy orgs and news orgs who sat down with bloggers to bridge some of the communication gaps that are painfully apparent as everyone tries to navigate the new power and communication structures that have quickly emerged and continue to evolve. We’re past the head-in-the-sand time. Now perhaps the White House might think about sending someone to attend next time around.

One of the feminist bloggers who attended my panel on electing more progressive women to office approached me afterwards and was crestfallen that there was only one panel on women in politics and noted how prominent LGBT issues were at this NN. I told her that I’ve been to all but the first NN, and have seen tremendous growth in LGBT influence at NN after starting with just a handful of attendees and no panels on our issues. Building the coalitions and actively pushing your way in the door is the only way to be heard above the many voices and inertia the progressive movement has had toward LGBT (and women’s) issues to date.

***

One last note: I get mobbed by fans/readers at this event; my fellow bloggers call me a “rock star” (ahem, Joe Sudbay). The rock star thing is hilarious.

I do get fan mobbed at NN. Maybe not like Markos, but it’s true that I cannot make it down any corridor without several people wanting a photo of/ with me or an interview. I am very appreciative of being able to meet readers, many of them are lurkers, not commenters. It’s quite humbling when many of these people are actually pols, other bloggers and activists much more important than I am (IMHO). I still don’t get it. That whole ‘imposter syndrome” thing, I guess. But since I am really just an average person working an average job in the real world, it is disconcerting to recognize how popular my online work is to so many. So thank you all; I enjoy meeting and speaking with you. 

I can at least report to my wife that no one hit on me in Vegas. I don’t think she has anything to worry about; I’m a rock star without the sex appeal, LOLOLOL.

This video by RonMattieu is up on YouTube. It’s a TV screencap of a report by Barbara Starr about the survey sent out today by the Pentagon related to implementation of DADT repeal to 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops.

CNN’s Barbara Starr defends polling soldiers if they want to shower with “open” gays. Listen carefully as anchor Drew Griffin challenges her and she becomes quite defensive in justifying the ‘survey’. Truly despicable. The exchange starts around 2:20.

Here is part of the Starr’s report as it appears on the CNN web site, and she repeats almost verbatim in the video.

An administration official confirmed to CNN that the survey is being sent to 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops. The official declined to be identified because the survey has not officially been made public.

The survey, which service members can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.

The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters in overseas war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.

At the end of her report, Drew Griffin seems perturbed at the idea of the whole survey idea, and asks:

Why do they care—these joint chiefs—these guys are paid to make decisions. Why are they sending out this public relations survey asking whoever wants to respond to this and supposedly going to use this to make a decision on this?

Starr is a little taken aback and responds with

“You’re right this is a terrific question because there is a lot of confusion about it because we all know that in the military once the Commander in Chief give an order, salute smartly and carry on. That’s the way life goes in the military, you really don’t get a vote on what orders you want to follow.”

She continues on to talk about the political “delicate nature” of the situation, how the President really wants repeal but well, to paraphrase broadly—they want to make sure these 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops aren’t worried about the soap dropping in the shower.

Now what’s weird is that the video on CNN’s web site (below) obviously edits out that exchange between Griffn and Starr at 2:26 - 4:39 in the above video.

Why? There’s no real reason to do so, as it’s a web clip, so time constraints aren’t relevant. What editorial judgment was made that Griffin’s interest in a logical reason for the survey is not newsworthy to readers of CNN’s web site?

(Photo: Americablog’s Joe Sudbay took this impressionist photo of me in the White House Press Briefing Room, 7/1/2010.)

What the heck was I doing at the White House?

This week I received an invitation to the White House earlier this week from the Office of Media Affairs to cover a LGBT policy briefing. What was different from the various background and off-the-record events that happen all the time was that this would be an on-the-record, face-to-face meeting with an administration official. I felt this was important to attend, for the sake of you, the readers, to represent the grassroots perspective that progress is just not where it should be.

Thursday’s meeting was with Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes. To back up a bit, LGBT reporters have been on the equivalent of a resource blackout with the administration to date, with no high-level policy official focused on ensuring that the wider LGBT community is informed on administration plans or strategy. And this President has not participated in a sit-down interview with LGBT media at all since occupying the White House. And it shows - we’ve seen mixed messages, dodges on questions (see Robert Gibbs), and onerous surprises like the language of the DOMA brief that came as a slap in the face to the community.

I can’t speak for anyone else who attended, but my expectations weren’t very high (though for me, forking over $650 out of the Blend’s budget for a one-day roundtrip ticket without a guarantee of anything worth reporting was a gamble). You can decide whether it was money well spent.

I do thank the White House for making Melody Barnes’s time available to LGBT media—if only the administration had reached out earlier (something I made clear in the meeting—it would have saved the WH a lot of grief if it spoke with parties other than Gay, Inc over the last year and a half). Now it can choose whether it’s worthwhile to build a broader communication bridge.

Who attended

Seventeen

Sixteen people were invited, nine were able to make it: Lou Chibbaro, The Washington Blade; Jen Colletta, Philadelphia Gay News; Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate; Chris Geidner, Metro Weekly; Paul Schindler, Gay City News; Jillian Weiss, The Bilerico Project; Joe Sudbay; Americablog; Lisa Keen from Keen News Service and your blogmistress.

The fun begins below the fold.

Read All...