Friday, December 24, 2010

Target Continues to Fund Anti-Gay Politicians

From ThinkProgress.org: This past summer, Target became embroiled in a fierce political controversy when it was revealed that the retail giant was using corporate funds to support anti-gay gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Target gave $150,000 to a Republican political group that ran ads in support of Emmer’s candidacy.

Because Target had earned a reputation of being a progressive leader among its corporate competitors — for instance, the company extends domestic-partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees — the revelation of the company’s political giving came as a surprise and spurred calls for a boycott. In a few short days, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized in a letter to his employees:

While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry. [...]

Going forward, we will soon begin a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena. And later this fall, Target will take a leadership role in bringing together a group of companies and partner organizations for a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.

But as new FEC records indicate that, despite Steinhafel’s apology, Target maintained its corporate contributions to right-wing, anti-gay candidates. After Steinhafel’s written apology, Target’s Political Action Committee “recorded $41,200 in federal election activity. Of that total, $31,200 went to anti-gay rights politicians or PACs supporting those candidates.”

One of the biggest recipients of Target’s cash was Republican lawmaker John Kline, who has voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation, against treated anti-gay violence as a hate crime, and in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Human Rights Campaign has given him a zero rating in terms of support for GLBT issues.”

Target also supported Erik Paulsen, “a consistent opponent of gay marriage. He voted against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and against workplace anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.”

Target also gave support to a range of other anti-gay candidates, including Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Dave Camp (R-MI), Dave Reichert (D-WA), David Dreier (R-CA), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Sen.-elect Rob Portman (R-OH). The Awl’s Abe Sauer reports, “We asked Target to explain these donations. They chose not to provide any answers.”

While Target’s PAC also gave small amounts to pro-gay politicians, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), it’s clear that even after the political controversy erupted Target’s behavior did not change

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Kiss!

With Obama’s Signature, ‘Don’t Ask’ Is Repealed

From NYT: By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON — The military’s longstanding ban on service by gays and lesbians came to a historic and symbolic end on Wednesday, as President Obama signed legislation repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the contentious 17-year old Clinton-era law that sought to allow gays to serve under the terms of an uneasy compromise that required them to keep their sexuality a secret.

“No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie or look over their shoulder,” Mr. Obama said during a signing ceremony in a packed auditorium at the Interior Department here. Quoting the chairman of his joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, Mr. Obama went on, “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.”

The repeal does not immediately put a stop to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Mr. Obama must still certify that changing the law to allow homosexual and bisexual men and women to serve openly in all branches of the military will not harm readiness, as must Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen, before the military can implement the new law. But the secretary and the admiral have backed Mr. Obama, who said ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a topic of his first meeting with the men. He praised Mr. Gates for his courage; Admiral Mullen, who was on stage with the president during the signing ceremony here, received a standing ovation.

While there is still significant resistance within the military to the change in policy, especially within the Marine Corps, at least one proponent — Representative Barney Frank, the openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts — insisted on Wednesday that this latest effort to integrate the armed services will go more smoothly than did racial or gender integration.

“Reality will very soon make it clear that there is nothing to worry about,” Mr. Frank said. He called the signing the biggest civil rights moment in the nation since the signing of voting rights legislation in the 1960s. “If you can fight for your country, you can do anything,” he said.

In the years since President Bill Clinton first enacted “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1993, some 17,000 service members have been discharged under the policy. While many gay people in the military are now breathing a sigh of relief, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents soldiers facing charges under the policy, is warning its members that they are “still at risk” because the repeal will not take full effect until 60 days after Mr. Obama, the defense secretary and admiral certify readiness.

“The bottom line is DADT is still in effect and it is not safe to come out,” the organization said.

For Mr. Obama, the ceremony — held at the Interior Department because the White House is tied up with holiday tours — marked yet another in a string of last-minute, bipartisan legislative triumphs, a surprising turnaround in the wake of the self-described “shellacking” his party took at the polls last month. He had already signed a bipartisan tax deal into law, and the Senate appears headed on Wednesday to approve a new nuclear arms pact with Russia, which will give him a significant foreign policy victory as he wraps up the first half of his term. He looked relaxed and upbeat as he soaked up the energy from an enthusiastic crowd.For the gay rights movement, which has been frustrated with the pace of progress under Mr. Obama, Wednesday marked a celebratory turning point. “Thank you, Mr. President,” someone shouted, as Mr. Obama took the stage, prompting a round of other shouts: “Chicago’s in the house, Mr. President! You rock, Mr. President!” Mr. Obama pronounced himself overwhelmed.

The audience for the ceremony included a who’s who of gay activists, among them Frank Kameny, who was fired from a civilian job as an Army astronomer in 1957 — an act that prompted him to found a gay rights advocacy organization in Washington D.C. and to file a lawsuit which went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1965 he picketed the White House, in the first ever demonstration there by gays.

Now white-haired at 85, Mr. Kameny also served as an enlisted Army soldier; he signed up in May 1943, he said, three days before he turned 18, and saw “front line combat” in Germany during World War II. He said he was asked if he had “homosexual tendencies” and denied it. “They asked, and I didn’t tell,” he said, “and I resented for 67 years that I had to lie.”

Monday, December 20, 2010

Senate Repeals DADT!

From NYT: By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Saturday struck down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay and lesbian troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban. “As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the Senate, on a 63-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block a final vote on the repeal bill.

The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military.

It followed a comprehensive review by the Pentagon that found a low risk to military effectiveness despite greater concerns among some combat units and the Marine Corps. The review also found that Pentagon officials supported Congressional repeal as a better alternative than an court-ordered end.

Supporters of the repeal said it was long past time to end what they saw as an ill-advised practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country.

“We righted a wrong,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who led the effort to end the ban. “Today we’ve done justice.”

Before voting on the repeal, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants who came to the United States at a young age, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check.

The 55-41 vote in favor of the citizenship bill was five votes short of the number needed to clear the way for final passage of what is known as the Dream Act. The outcome effectively kills it for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain since Republicans who will assume control of the House in January oppose the measure and are unlikely to bring it to a vote.

The Senate then moved on to the military legislation, engaging in an emotional back and forth over the merits of the measure as advocates for repeal watched from galleries crowded with people interested in the fate of both the military and immigration measures. “I don’t care who you love,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the debate opened. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn’t have to hide who you are.”

Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying earlier that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery for prostate cancer on Monday.

The vote came in the final days of the 111th Congress as Democrats sought to force through a final few priorities before they turn over control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans in January and see their clout in the Senate diminished.

It represented a significant victory for the White House, Congressional advocates of lifting the ban and activists who have pushed for years to end the Pentagon policy created in 1993 under the Clinton administration as a compromise effort to end the practice of banning gay men and lesbians entirely from military service. Saying it represented an emotional moment for members of the gay community nationwide, activists who supported repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” exchanged hugs outside the Senate chamber after the vote.

“Today’s vote means gay and lesbian service members posted all around the world can stand taller knowing that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will soon be coming to an end,” said Aubrey Sarvis, an Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

The executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group that challenged the policy in federal court, thanked Republicans senators for participating in a historic vote. The director, R. Clarke Cooper, who is a member of the Army Reserve, said repeal will "finally end a policy which has burdened our armed services for far too long, depriving our nation of the talent, training and hard won battle experience of thousands of patriotic Americans. "

A federal judge had ruled the policy unconstitutionial in response to the Log Cabin suit, but that decision had been stayed pending appeal.

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center in California, a research institute at the University of California in Santa Barbara that studies issues surrounding gays and lesbians in the military, said that the vote “ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings.”

In a statement on the group’s website, Mr. Belkin said: “It has long been clear that there is no evidence that lifting the ban will undermine the military, and no reason to fear the transition to inclusive policy. Research shows that moving quickly is one of the keys to a successful transition. If the President and military leadership quickly certify the end of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ they will ensure an orderly transition with minimal disruption."

Organizations that opposed repeal of the ban assailed the Republican senators who defied their party majority.

The Center for Military Readiness, a group that specializes in social issues in the military and has opposed repeal, said the new legislation “will impose heavy, unnecessary burdens on the backs of military men and women.” It said the Senate majority voted with “needless haste” by not waiting for hearings into a recent Department of Defense study of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Elaine Donnelly, president of the group, said that the Pentagon’s survey indicated that 32 percent of Marines and 21.4 percent of Army combat troops would leave the military sooner than planned if “don’t ask, don’t tell” were repealed.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said senators like Scott Brown, a Republican from Massachusetts, “broke trust with the people” by voting on repeal before the federal budget was resolved and “have put the troops at risk during wartime.”

During the debate, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and his party’s presidential candidate in 2008, led the opposition to the repeal and said the vote was a sad day in history. “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage,” Mr. McCain said. “And we could possibly and probably, as the commandant of the Marine Corps said, and as I have been told by literally thousands of members of the military, harm the battle effectiveness vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military.”

He and other opponents of lifting the ban said the change could harm the unit cohesion that is essential to effective military operations, particularly in combat, and deter some Americans from enlisting or pursuing a career in the military. They noted that despite support for repealing the ban from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other military commanders have warned that changing the practice would prove disruptive.

“This isn’t broke,” Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said about the policy. “It is working very well.”

Other Republicans said that while the policy might need to be changed at some point, Congress should not do so when American troops are fighting overseas.

“In the middle of a military conflict, is not the time to do it,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.

Only a week ago, the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seemed to be dead and in danger of fading for at least two years with Republicans about to take control of the House. The provision eliminating the ban was initially included in a broader Pentagon policy bill, and Republican backers of repeal had refused to join in cutting off a filibuster against the underlying bill because of objections over the ability to debate the measure.

In a last-ditch effort, Mr. Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key Republican opponent of the ban, encouraged Democratic Congressional leaders to instead pursue a vote on simply repealing it. The House passed the measure earlier in the week.

The repeal will not take effect for at least 60 days while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition, the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal “consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.”

Because of the uncertainty, Mr. Sarvis appealed to Mr. Gates to suspend any investigations into military personnel or discharge proceedings under the policy to be overturned in the coming months.

Mr. Lieberman said the ban undermined the integrity of the military by forcing troops to lie. He said 14,000 members of the armed forces had been forced to leave the ranks under the policy.

“What a waste,” he said.

The fight erupted in the early days of President Bill Clinton’s administration and has been a roiling political issue ever since. Mr. Obama endorsed repeal in his own campaign and advocates saw the current Congress as their best opportunity for ending the ban. Dozens of advocates of ending the ban — including one wounded in combat before being forced from the military — watched from the Senate gallery as the debate took place.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed Republican complaints that Democrats were trying to race through the repeal to satisfy their political supporters.

“I’m not here for partisan reasons,” Mr. Levin said. “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and a crucial proponent of the repeal, noted that some Republicans had indicated they might try to block Senate approval of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia because of their pique over the Senate action on the ban.

“How’s that’s for statesmanship?” Mr. Reid said.


Joseph Berger contributed reporting from New York.

Straight No Chaser - Silent Night

Merry Christmas Darling

All I Want for Christmas is You

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Illinois Accepts New Kind of Union

From STLToday.com: When I was a kid, many families had a regular night to eat out. Ours was Thursday. We rotated among Carroll's, the Revere Room, the Clay-Mor, the National Trail Inn, Northgate and other lost gems of Collinsville's culinary past.

It also was restaurant night for a couple — friends of my parents — who dined on the same circuit. Our conversations were always warm. Childless themselves, the two lavished attention on my sister and me. They acted like any middle-aged married couple of the 1960s, except they weren't married. They couldn't be. They were two single women, living their lives together.

The precise nature of their relationship was beyond my youthful curiosity. Once I was mature enough to grasp the obvious, the questions in my mind did not range to inheritance rights, health insurance coverage or whether one might make medical decisions for the other.

Now, decades later, the Illinois Legislature has decided to confer rights and protections that those nice women at the next table probably would have found hard to imagine.

Not everybody's happy about it, and I find that hard to imagine.

Illinois is about to become the nation's 11th state, plus the District of Columbia, to provide some kind of legal recognition to same-sex couples.

The House passed SB1716 on a 61-52 roll call Nov. 30, and the Senate 32-24 the next day. A little Republican support (six votes) put it over the top in the House. Gov. Pat Quinn has promised to sign the bill into law, effective June 1, 2011.

Essentially, it provides husband-wifelike legal status to couples — homosexual or heterosexual — without religious connotation or the M-word. Hence, we say "civil union," not "marriage."

It feels like a small step. You see, we've already had state-sanctioned civil unions for a long time.

I wanted to become a partner in one almost 20 years ago. When I fell in love with my wife, she had an adorable 5-year-old son. But since he already had a perfectly viable father, Chris was not available for me to formally adopt.

What is adoption if not a civil union? People with no common blood enter a formal agreement that binds them as if they were kin. It guarantees rights of access and decision making. It provides a legal basis for each to share assets with — and take care of — the other.

Oh, the naysayers will quickly suggest that there is a huge difference: There is no sexual component to adoption. But homosexual civil unions aren't about sex either. They do not authorize any bedroom behavior that hasn't already been legal in every state since at least 2003, with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

Those who want Illinois statutes to reflect their judgment of homosexuality as an abomination didn't lose the battle in 2010. They lost it in 1961, when the Legislature made Illinois the first state to remove laws regulating sexual conduct between consenting adults. (Missouri rescinded its last restrictions in 2006, after the Lawrence case had rendered them meaningless.)

For the sake of political correctness, SB1716 is titled the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." The "religious freedom" part up front just means that if you don't like it, don't bless it. Officially: "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."

Otherwise, the unions work a lot like the, well, that M-word. Unionists (unitees?) have to be at least 18, not closely related and neither married nor civilly united somewhere else. They get a license from the county clerk. They can dissolve the union under the same terms as a divorce.

For the record, these people still will not be related in federal eyes for such things as joint income tax returns or Social Security benefits. That's because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed to protect the unions of we straight people.

In that regard, I have discussed the new Illinois law with my wife. We are happy to report that we think our marriage can survive it.

Sunday, December 05, 2010

Bareback Studio Treasure Island Fined Over Sex Scenes

From Xbiz.com: Friday, December 3, 2010
By Lyla Katz
SAN FRANCISCO — Gay bareback studio Treasure Island Media is appealing three citations issued by Cal/OSHA, stemming from an investigation into the company that found it violated workplace safety regulations by allowing performers to have unprotected sex.
Krisann Chasarik, of the California Department of Industrial Relations, told XBIZ the investigation into the company began last November in response to a complaint the agency received about possible safety violations at Treasure Island Media.

Chasarik said the five-month investigation was completed last March and a total of three citations were issued, totaling $21,470 in penalties.

Two serious citations were issued for $9,000 each. One citation said the employer has not developed procedures for:


•Methods of compliance, including engineering controls and work practices;
•Hepatitis B Vaccination, post-exposure evaluation and follow up;
•Communication of hazards to employees; and
•Recordkeeping.
“On Nov. 5, 2009, Treasure Island Media had failed to write or otherwise establish, implement and maintain an effective exposure control plan,” the 23-page investigation report said.

“Employees were exposed to semen and other potentially infectious materials, due to work activities during filming and set cleaning.”


The second serious citation said, “Treasure Island Media does not observe universal precautions during the production of their films. They have not instituted engineering and work practices controls to eliminate or minimize contact with blood and semen, including, but not limited to, the use of barrier protection such as condoms.”

Treasure Island Media's general manager Matt Mason told XBIZ that the company has cooperated with the Cal/OSHA investigation and administrative process.

"We have appealed the citations and participated in the informal conference process and expect to take the matter to a hearing in 2011 with an administrative law judge," Mason said.

Treasure Island Media has recently signed HIV-positive performer James Roscoe and has been promoting scenes with other HIV-positive performers.

Cal/OSHA senior safety engineer Deborah Gold said the agency issued citations to the company because of performers having unprotected sex and other technical issues, not because of scenes involving HIV-positive performers.

"Anybody may be infected, therefore you have to treat everybody's blood and other potential infectious materials [such as semen] as though it can be infectious,” Gold said.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Civil Unions Advance in Illinois

From NYT: CHICAGO — Illinois lawmakers on Wednesday approved legislation allowing civil unions in this state, and the governor has indicated he will sign it, making Illinois one of only a handful of states to grant to same-sex couples a broad array of legal rights and responsibilities similar to those of marriage.

Advocates of the legislation, who had pressed the matter for years, pointed to the outcome as a sign that acceptance of gay men and lesbians is growing and not only on the coasts.

“Sober, clear-minded, cautious Midwesterners are taking this action,” said Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois, a gay-rights group.

Opponents complained about the timing of the vote (during a fall session before newly elected legislators arrive) and said they feared civil union legislation might ultimately harm the institution of marriage. “This will be the entry to a slippery slope,” Ron Stephens, a Republican state representative, said. “The next thing we’ll see will be consideration of gay marriage.”

Five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while New Jersey grants civil unions similar to the measure expected to take effect here in July. Four other states grant domestic partnerships with broad legal rights — bonds that some experts said carry many of the rights provided under Illinois’s new legislation if not the precise ceremonial recognition suggested by civil union.

The Illinois provision will provide couples many legal protections now granted to married couples, including emergency medical decision-making powers and inheritance rights. The legislation allows heterosexual couples to seek civil unions, too.

The result in Illinois comes at a shifting moment in the national battle over gay rights. With huge Republican gains in state capitols following the election last month, opponents of same-sex marriage predict a powerful push-back against recent efforts to legalize such unions. Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said she had renewed hope for constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman in places like Minnesota, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

In Illinois, where Democrats dominate both state legislative chambers (and will next year, even after new lawmakers are seated) the votes were split: 32 to 24 in the State Senate on Wednesday, and 61 to 52 in the House a day earlier.

Supporters of gay rights widely praised Illinois’s decision, but many said the eventual goal remained legalizing same-sex marriage, not a separate civil union system.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Illinois Senate approves civil unions, measure heads to Gov Quinn

From Chicago Tribune: SPRINGFIELD --- Civil unions for same-sex couples would be allowed in Illinois under historic legislation the state Senate swiftly sent today to Gov. Pat Quinn, who is expected to sign the measure.

The bill would give gay couples the chance to enjoy several of the same rights as married couples, ranging from legal rights on probate matters to visiting a partner in a hospital that won’t allow anyone but relatives into a patient’s room.

The Senate voted 32-24 after the House, viewed as the toughest hurdle, passed the measure on Tuesday. (The Senate roll call can be found here. The House roll call can be found here.)

Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, was one of many referencing Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as she urged colleagues to join her in “bending the moral arc of justice.”
“This is a legacy vote,” Steans said. “It makes a statement about the justice for which we stand.”

Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, said he sees the issue “through the eyes of a father who has a gay child,” a daughter who “doesn’t have the same rights” as his other children.

But Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora, questioned, “Why civil unions now?” when the state reels from high unemployment, home foreclosures, a huge state debt and social services in disarray.

“We are the incompetence laughing stock of government mismanagement and misplaced priorities, and our one-party (Democratic) leadership spends our time on homosexual civil unions,” Lauzen said.

Republican Sen. Dan Rutherford, who was elected state treasurer last month, said he'll vote for civil unions.

"It's the right thing to do," said Rutherford, who will be sworn in come January as a statewide elected official.

Sen. John Jones, R-Mount Vernon, said he has a “lot of good gay friends” that he respects and supports, but civil union “is the wrong path to take,” particularly now when state leaders should be focused on fixing state finances and putting people to work.

“Rome is burning, folks, and we’re sitting back watching it burning,” Jones said.

Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, voted present.

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign it after his campaign pledge to support the measure.

Under the proposal, same-sex couples would enjoy several rights married couples currently have, such as making end-of-life decisions, handling probate matters, sharing nursing home rooms or even visiting partners in hospitals that deny visits by anyone but family.

Business groups did not weigh in on the measure. State officials say they expect some increase in health insurance costs.

The House signed off on civil unions after a debate that sometimes got emotional.

"We have a chance here, as leaders have had in previous generations, to correct injustice and to move us down the path toward liberty," said sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, one of two openly gay lawmakers, his voice breaking with emotion. "It's a matter of fairness, it's a matter of respect, it's a matter of equality."

Opponents charged that civil unions are a "slippery slope" that will erode traditional family values.

"Are you ready for gay marriage?" asked Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, who raised his voice putting that question to colleagues.

The civil unions success is the latest in a quickly evolving attitude about gay rights in Illinois. Only five years ago, lawmakers passed protections against discrimination in jobs and housing for gays and lesbians. It took decades to pass that measure. Illinois has moved toward more liberal stances on social issues since Democrats took control of state government at the start of 2003.

A Tribune poll conducted in late September showed 57 percent approved of legalizing civil unions while 32 percent disapproved.

Approval came despite vigorous opposition from the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which is headed by Cardinal Francis George, who personally made calls to legislators asking lawmakers to oppose the bill. But proponents waged a strong lobbying effort of their own.

The House approved the civil unions measure last night with one vote to spare in a move that surprised many political observers. Democrats made up the bulk of the 61 "yes" votes, with a handful of Republicans signing on as well.

Posted at 12:23:49 PM in Legislature

Illinois House Passes Historic Gay Civil Unions Bill

From Chicago Tribune: SPRINGFIELD — — Illinois took a major step Tuesday night toward allowing civil unions for same-sex couples, a sign that gay rights keeps gaining momentum inside a Capitol where it languished for decades.

As onlookers broke out into cheers, the House for the first time ever approved civil unions, with one vote to spare. Supporters expect the Senate to follow suit Wednesday, and Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn campaigned this fall on a pledge to sign it into law.
"We have a chance here, as leaders have had in previous generations, to correct injustice and to move us down the path toward liberty," said sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris, D- Chicago, one of two openly gay lawmakers, his voice breaking with emotion. "It's a matter of fairness, it's a matter of respect, it's a matter of equality."

Opponents charged that civil unions are a "slippery slope" that will erode traditional family values.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Shopping: Your home for personalized holiday shopping deals >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Are you ready for gay marriage?" asked Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, who raised his voice putting that question to colleagues.

Under the proposal, same-sex couples would enjoy several rights married couples currently have, such as making end-of-life decisions, handling probate matters, sharing nursing home rooms or even visiting partners in hospitals that deny visits by anyone but family.

Business groups did not weigh in on the measure. State officials say they expect some increase in health insurance costs.

"Most of the major businesses in our country now extend domestic partnership benefits to their employees," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois. "The state of Illinois already extends domestic partnership benefits to employees. This really is cost-neutral."

If approved, Illinois next summer would join New Jersey in having a civil union law on the books. Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa have same-sex marriage laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The civil unions success is the latest in a quickly evolving attitude about gay rights in Illinois. Only five years ago, lawmakers passed protections against discrimination in jobs and housing for gays and lesbians. It took decades to pass that measure. Illinois has moved toward more liberal stances on social issues since Democrats took control of state government at the start of 2003.

A Tribune poll conducted in late September showed 57 percent approved of legalizing civil unions while 32 percent disapproved.

Approval came despite vigorous opposition from the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which is headed by Cardinal Francis George, who personally made calls to legislators asking lawmakers to oppose the bill. But proponents waged a strong lobbying effort of their own.

Quinn, who is Catholic, took the extra step of standing on the House floor to watch the breakthrough vote. He called passage a "great step forward."

"It's important that we respect the diversity that we have in our state and be a tolerant state of Illinois," Quinn said.

During the debate, Rep. Deborah Mell, D-Chicago, tearfully implored legislators to vote for the bill as her longtime partner, Christin Baker, sat near on the House floor. They plan to get married in Iowa next fall.

"I love my state and am proud to live here. But my state does not treat me equally. It will take my money, take my taxes, I can even make laws for people," said Mell, the daughter of Chicago Ald. Richard Mell and sister-in-law of ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich. "If God forbid something happens to Christin, and she cannot make a decision, by law the doctor cannot ask me anything. I am not able to speak for her wishes. Under the law the doctor has to go to her family and I'm not considered family."

Though unusually quiet during debate, the House chamber echoed at times with vocal dissent.

Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Troy, said he wants to avoid having to "someday explain to my children and grandchildren that no longer in America are we going to give the honor to a man and a woman in marriage."

"I believe that if this should ever pass, the next bill will be legalizing marriage between members of the same sex. And I just think that's wrong. You might think I'm wrong in thinking that … just call me an old-fashioned traditionalist."

Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, R-Des Plaines, offered a different view, saying she had been too sick to travel to Springfield for earlier legislative action, but she got in her car and drove to Springfield on Tuesday when she learned from supporters she might be the 60th vote needed to pass the measure.

"The fact of the matter is there are gay people, and you're not going to abolish the fact that they are gay by not letting them have these rights," said Mulligan, who added that she wanted to demonstrate that not all Republicans are strict conservatives when it comes to social issues. Still, the overwhelming number of the 61 lawmakers who voted for civil unions were Democrats.

Robert F. Gilligan, the Catholic Conference's executive director, said he is disappointed that civil unions passed, but now is focused on lobbying senators to vote it down Wednesday. Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is an avid supporter of the bill, and supporters have considered the House a tougher obstacle

Gilligan said he was particularly dismayed that the bill passed during a lame-duck session. The measure got a boost from as many as a dozen lawmakers who will not return because they are retiring or were defeated in the Nov. 2 election.

Camilla Taylor, a lawyer with Lambda Legal in Chicago, a group that helped draft the legislation, said businesses in Illinois that provide spousal benefits will have to treat same-sex couples who have entered into a civil union the same as heterosexual couples.

"The civil unions bill makes especially clear that businesses aren't acting in good faith if they continue to treat same-sex couples differently with regard to spousal benefits," Taylor said.

She said that in other states where civil unions bills have passed, Lambda Legal has won cases in which businesses have refused to provide spousal benefits to partners in a civil union.

Modesto Valle, executive director of the Center on Halsted, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center in Lakeview, said that if civil unions become law, he expects people will take advantage of it in a measured fashion.

"I don't believe that all of a sudden people will be running out the door to be recognized in their union," he said. "People are going to take this very seriously, just like marriage. Once marriage gets passed in this country, it's not like all gay and lesbian people are going to run out and get married. It's something to be taken very seriously."

rlong@tribune.com

Friday, October 01, 2010

An Important Message from Ellen on Bullying

Michigan Assistant AG Banned from college campus - Student Obtains Protection Order

From Detroit Free Press freep.com: Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has been banned from the University of Michigan campus, and the student leader he’s been attacking via a blog has filed a personal protection order against him.Meanwhile, the U-M administration issued a statement today supporting Chris Armstrong, the president of the Michigan Student Assembly and target of Shirvell’s blog, saying U-M “does not tolerate bigotry of any type.”
Shirvell was issued the trespass warning Sept. 14, said Diane Brown, spokeswoman for the U-M Police.
“He can’t come onto any campus property,” Brown said.
Brown, asked why the trespass order was issued, said U-M police had received a complaint "about him being a possible suspect in harassing or stalking behavior."
Shirvell is appealing the order.
Shirvell has gained national scrutiny because of a blog, called Chris Armstrong Watch, in which he attacks Armstrong, the first openly gay president of the MSA. On the blog, he accuses Armstrong of promoting a radical homosexual agenda and calls him a racist. The blog is now private and open only to invited members.
Armstrong fired back in the personal protection order filed two weeks ago. The order, posted on www.annarbor.com today, says since being elected to the student leadership post in the spring, Shirvell has attacked him verbally at campus events, called the office where Armstrong was doing a summer internship in D.C. and complained about him, followed Armstrong’s friends to events hoping to find Armstrong, and protested and took pictures outside Armstrong’s home. One of his friends felt threatened by a conversation with Shirvell after.
On more than one occasion, police were called when Shirvell protested at Armstrong’s home.
In the filing, Armstrong says Shirvell’s actions “have been incredibly distressing,” and “make me feel unsure about my own safety.” He said he came to U-M knowing it was a safe and encouraging place for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
“His actions have not only threatened that, but have been an outright attack on my ability to live my life openly and be honest about who I am,” Armstrong wrote.
Many have called on Attorney General Mike Cox to fire Shirvell. In mid-September, he issued a statement in which he said that while all state employees have a right to free speech outside working hours “Mr. Shirvell’s immaturity and lack of judgment outside the office are clear.”
Shirvell helped manage Cox's 2006 re-election campaign.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm entered the debate via her official Twitter account this afternoon. She said, “If I was still Attorney General and Andrew Shirvell worked for me, he would have already been fired.”
In a series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has set limits on the First Amendment rights of government employees.
“When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court in 2006. “Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees’ words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services.”
In that case, the high court ruled, 5-4, that a Los Angeles deputy district attorney was legally disciplined for statements he had made as part of his “official duties.”
Public servants generally get more leeway for comments they make as private citizens, which is what Shirvell has insisted he has been doing in his attacks on Armstrong.
But even that protection is not absolute, the Supreme Court has said. Government workers have greater rights when they comment on “a matter of public concern,” or when their comments do not affect their employers’ operations.
Brown, the U-M police spokeswoman, wouldn’t comment on how or where Shirvell was issued the trespass warning. While banning someone from campus isn’t an uncommon occurrence, the situation surrounding Shirvell, who is a U-M alum, is unique.
“This is indeed an unusual situation,” Brown said.
U-M police have been meeting with members of the MSA, addressing any concerns they have about their own personal safety. Police also have attended recent meetings of the MSA, which has full-assembly meetings weekly.
“We have been to some events that have been held just to be sure everything’s OK,” Brown said.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Michigan AG Mike Cox Refuses To Discipline Deputy For Anti-Gay Hate Speech

From ThinkProgress.org: For nearly six months, Michigan’s assistant attorney general Andrew Shivrell has been engaging in a bizarre internet campaign against Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student assembly president at the University of Michigan. Shrivrell has attacked Armstrong’s “radical homosexual agenda” and has published posts on his blog “Chris Armstrong Watch” with photoshopped pictures of Armstrong with rainbow flags and swastikas. This week on CNN, Shivrell maintained the legitimacy of his campaign against Armstrong, saying, “I don’t have any hate in my body at all.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper last night asked Shivrell’s boss, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, if Shivrell should be reprimanded in any way for his actions. “We have this thing called the First Amendment, which allows people to express what they think,” Cox said defending Shivrell.

Cooper noted that Cox has even “made Internet safety one of the main initiatives” of his department and has “done public service announcements” on cyber-bullying. Cox conceded that Shivell is bullying Armstrong but added that his actions are protected by the First Amendment. When Cooper said that CNN legal analyst Jeffry Toobin had suggested that Cox’s reluctance to discipline Shivell was because he’s a political ally, Cox attacked Toobin:

COX: Well, you know, Mr. Toobin reminds me of the old joke, “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on TV,” because he clearly didn’t read any of the Supreme Court case that I cited for you.

COOPER: He’s a former federal prosecutor, but you’re saying politics has nothing to do with this?

COX: But that — you know, that doesn’t mean anything, Anderson. He’s not in the ring every day practicing law. He’s spending time on CNN. And it’s a pretty good gig. I wish I had it.

“I’m sorry he’s not a fan,” Toobin said later on the program, adding that “the direction the [Supreme] Court is moving is towards less and less free speech protection for stuff that is a heck of a lot less offensive than the stuff” coming from Shivrell. Noting that Shivrell had actually picketed outside Armstrong’s house, legal scholar Jonathan Turley said, “That comes very, very close to stalking. There could be civil liability here. And I think that that moves this away from free speech into conduct. And that does — that is a legitimate basis for discipline.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Student’s suicide after being filmed having gay sex a ‘hate crime’: group

From RawStory.com:A New Jersey college student jumped to his death off a bridge a day after authorities say two classmates surreptitiously recorded him having sex with a man in his dorm room and broadcast it over the Internet.
Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge last week, said his family's attorney, Paul Mainardi. Police recovered a man's body Wednesday afternoon in the Hudson River just north of the bridge, and authorities were trying to determine if it was Clementi's.
Two Rutgers freshmen have been charged with illegally taping the 18-year-old Clementi having sex and broadcasting the images via an Internet chat program.
Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said in a statement Wednesday that his group considers Clementi's death a hate crime.
"We are heartbroken over the tragic loss of a young man who, by all accounts, was brilliant, talented and kind," Goldstein said. "And we are sickened that anyone in our society, such as the students allegedly responsible for making the surreptitious video, might consider destroying others' lives as a sport."
One of the defendants, Dharun Ravi, was Clementi's roommate, Mainardi told The Star-Ledger of Newark. The other defendant is Molly Wei. They could face up to five years in prison if they're convicted.
A lawyer for Ravi, of Plainsboro, did not immediately return a message. It was not clear whether Wei, of Princeton, had retained a lawyer.
A Twitter account belonging to a Dharun was recently deleted, but in a cached version retained through Google he sent a message on Sept. 19: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."
Two days later, he wrote on Twitter: "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."
Clementi's driver's license and Rutgers ID were found in a wallet left on the bridge on Sept. 22 after two witnesses saw someone jump from it, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Clementi's body hadn't been positively identified.
Mainardi issued a statement Wednesday confirming Clementi's suicide.
"Tyler was a fine young man, and a distinguished musician," Mainardi said. "The family is heartbroken beyond words."
Ed Schmiedecke, the recently retired music director at Ridgewood High School, where Clementi graduated earlier this year, said Clementi was a violinist whose life revolved around music.
"He was a terrific musician, and a very promising, hardworking young man."
NYPD harbor officers recovered the body of a white man, clad only in pants, wearing a watch and without identification after a New York City Parks Department employee spotted a body floating in the river, police said. The body was taken to the city medical examiner's office; authorities hoped to use the watch as identification.


Read more: http://www.myspace.com/facesonfourthstreet/blog?bID=539544258#ixzz10zEjGTSB

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Stalks Gay College Student: Is this guy insane?

From RawStory.com: ""I have done NOTHING immoral OR illegal. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Armstrong and his fellow radical homosexual activists and "allies." As Isaiah rightly prophesied: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness . . ." (5:20).

So says a blog post by Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell, who's on a rampage against college student Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student assembly president at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, Shirvell defended his longwinded jeremiads against Armstrong, which go above and beyond simply calling him a radical activist. Among other things, the network notes that he's published "blog posts that accuse Armstrong of going back on a campaign promise he made to minority students; engaging in 'flagrant sexual promiscuity' with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, 'morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda'; hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009; and trying to recruit incoming first-year students "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.'"

He also "acknowledged protesting outside of Armstrong's house and calling him 'Satan's representative on the student assembly.'"

Shirvell has made the statements on his blog, "Chris Armstrong Watch," using the moniker "Concerned Michigan Alumnus." His anti-Armstrong crusade has gone on for six months.
In his inaugural blog post in April, he wrote, "This is a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong -- a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR -- as the new head of student government."

Shirvell also maintains Armstrong is engaged in rabid "homosexual recruitment."

In one of many very long posts on his blog titled "BOMBSHELL: Ann Arbor Police Raid Chris Armstrong's Out-of-Control 'Gay Rush' Welcome Week Party," Shirvell writes that "the aim of this 'party' was to liquor-up underage freshmen and promote homosexual activity in an effort to recruit them to the homosexual lifestyle."

He continues later, "But even more disgusting than Armstrong's recklessness in hosting this weekend's out-of-control homosexual recruitment "party" at his residence is the fact that Armstrong had the IMPUDENCE to send an e-mail, along with University of Michigan administrators, to the student body lecturing his constituents when it comes to hosting parties on U of M football Saturdays!"

The post also contained a cache of "exclusive" photographs of the police "raid."

Armstrong says he's pursuing legal action against Shirvell but wouldn't tell CNN specifically what action that was.

In a statement, Michigan's State Attorney General Mike Cox said, "Mr. Shirvell's personal opinions are his and his alone and do not reflect the views of the Michigan Department of Attorney General. But his immaturity and lack of judgment outside the office are clear."

Shirvell made no apologies for his blog postings during his CNN interview, "which [also] include a picture of Armstrong with "Resign" written over his face. The same picture also had a swastika superimposed over a gay pride flag, with an arrow pointing toward Armstrong.

Video of Shirvell's appearance Tuesday night on AC 360 follows.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Only 33% Agree that Gay Couples Are Family

From Time.com:
What makes a family? Do pets count? Same sex couples? Unmarried heterosexual couples? Anybody who lives together? According to a new book out Sept. 15, more Americans think pets count as family members (51%) than same-sex couples (33%). And 38% believe that neither pets nor same sex-couples should be counted as family.The book Counted Out: Same Sex Relations and America's Definitions of Family (Russell Sage Foundation) draws on two surveys done in 2003 and 2006. Brian Powell, the book's lead author, also released results from a 2010 survey in conjunction with the book's publication. The surveys are cross-sectional: about 800 people from all walks of life were interviewed about what they considered a family, using different people each time.

The results suggest that while acceptance of same-sex couples is growing, more people are still opposed to gay marriage (52%) than are in favor of it (48%). Despite this, when asked if legally married same-sex couples count as family, 59% of people say yes. Since he started doing the surveys, Powell, who's a professor of Sociology at Indiana University, has seen an 11% drop in the number of Americans who take a narrow or "traditional" view of family (married couples with children only), a statistic he calls "remarkable for both the size and the rate of change."

The pet figure, which seems the most remarkable of all, did not change much between 2006 and 2010. There are still about 30% of people who believe pets count as family but gay couples do not. This may be influenced by the way the question was phrased, however. It asked "whether pets should be counted as family members," which might have made people think of their own situation rather than offering an objective assessment of a family unit. (Then again, there was that university that offered employees pet health insurance before it offered domestic partners insurance.)

The presence of children also makes a huge difference to the way people see families. More than half of those surveyed felt that a same sex couple with children were a family, while only about a quarter felt that same sex couples without children were. And just a third felt that an unmarried heterosexual couple who lived together but had no kids should be considered a family. Almost 10% of people, who may have been watching too many Friends reruns, think housemates are family.

"What counts as family has real meaning," says Powell. "It affects people who are hospitalized, estate rights and adoption law. Where people are in their views on family correlates with what happens in policy."

The survey tracked other interesting changes too. People's beliefs about the source of obesity have moved in the opposite direction from their belief about the source of homosexuality. Fewer people than in 2003 now believe that a person's sexuality is caused primarily by their parenting rather than their genetic makeup. But more people than in 2003 believe that a person's weight problems are caused by their parenting rather than their genes. Will we need an overweight-rights movement?

And while most of the demographic makeup of the groups who hold each view is predictable, men are still more likely to believe that sexual orientation is most influenced by a child's upbringing than women are. Powell's explanation? "Women are more aware of the limitations of parenting."

Wisdom from grown-up gays and lesbians to bullied kids

From Time.com:
"Bullycide" is a colloquialism referring to suicide that results from intense bullying — think Megan Meier and Phoebe Price and Jaheem Herera, 11, a Georgia boy who hanged himself in 2009 after being tormented by classmates for being "gay and a snitch."
The link between bullying and suicide in teens has been on the forefront of media coverage for several years now, and it is children like Jaheem — who are gay or are perceived to be gay — that are most at risk. According to a study from Penn State University, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and "queer" youth (a catch-all term for gender and sexually non-normative people) are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. Of all American teens who die by their own hand, 30% are LGBTQ.

Almost 85% of LGBTQ teenagers are harassed in high school because of their sexual orientation, with 61% of gay youth reporting that they felt unsafe in school and 30% staying home to avoid bullying, according to a 2009 survey by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

The American Association of Suicidology (AAS) suggests that the overall figures on teen suicide rates are likely underestimated, since many premeditated deaths involving car crashes or drugs end up being ruled as accidental. Self-identifying as gay — which is not a scientific fact or medical diagnosis — further complicates data collection. At age 11, for instance, many kids have no idea what their sexual orientation is yet.

In September, in separate incidents, two 15-year-old boys, Indiana native Billy Lucas and Minnesota resident Justin Aaberg, hanged themselves following LGBTQ-specific abuse at the hands of classmates. Justin was openly gay, but Billy's sexuality was unknown — possibly even to him. The two did not know each other.

In the wake of the boys' deaths, many gay rights activists have questioned why sexual orientation–targeted bullying isn't getting more national attention. The gay-rights blog Queerty notes that Aaberg's school district specifically discourages distinguishing LGBTQ bullying (note: the previous link contains harsh language) from other kinds of bullying.

Dan Savage, a gay-rights activist and sex columnist for the Seattle alternative weekly The Stranger, decided to fill the void left by indolent school districts. In his Sept. 23 column, he wrote:

I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better.

But gay adults aren't allowed to talk to these kids. Schools and churches don't bring us in to talk to teenagers who are being bullied. Many of these kids have homophobic parents who believe that they can prevent their gay children from growing up to be gay — or from ever coming out — by depriving them of information, resources, and positive role models.

Why are we waiting for permission to talk to these kids? We have the ability to talk directly to them right now. We don't have to wait for permission to let them know that it gets better. We can reach these kids.

Savage launched the "It Gets Better" project on YouTube, where he invited gay adults to tell kids about how much better their lives got after they graduated from high school. Savage and his husband, Terry, uploaded a lengthy video about their own experiences with bullying, family acceptance and then, finally, of starting their own family together.

The project struck a chord — it began on Sept. 15, but the channel already has more than 300,000 viewers and 131 submissions as of this writing. While its fundamental goal is to prevent the sort of isolation that foments suicidal thoughts in troubled teens, the site has also become a bit of a historical project.

Several teenagers have posted tributes to friends who killed themselves following periods of harassment. One young woman, Ava, said of a friend who died: "One of the really frustrating things to me after his death was that it wasn't in the media. No one was outraged that this boy had basically been harassed until he couldn't take it anymore. ... It felt like no one really cared."

Testimony from adult contributors — whose ages range from Gen Y'ers to Baby Boomers — reveal stories of school bullying and community and familial rejection that still resonate with gay teens today. The videos are an oral history of ostracism and discrimination, and evidence of the fact that in many parts of the country, change is slow in coming.

While "It Gets Better" will hopefully provide comfort to gay teens living in hostile communities, it should do the exact opposite for the rest of us.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

DOJ to Judge: Keep Enforcing DADT

From Advocate.com: The Department of Justice asked a federal judge Thursday to continue enforcing the military's ban on gay and lesbian service members, despite a ruling earlier this month that struck down "don't ask, don't tell" as unconstitutional.

In a 14-page filing, Justice Department attorneys argued that an immediate, permanent injunction against enforcing the law —one supported by Log Cabin Republicans, which successfully challenged DADT in court and has argued for a halt to all discharges of gay service members — would be "untenable." (A PDF of the government’s brief is here.)

"Because any injunction in this case must be limited to [Log Cabin Republicans] and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of [DADT] fails as a threshold matter," assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote.

DADT repeal advocates and attorneys representing Log Cabin Republicans immediately slammed the Justice Department's filing. Dan Woods, lead attorney for the national gay Republican group, called the arguments "ridiculous" and said his team would file a response as soon as Friday.

"It’s our view that the objections fail to recognize the implications of the government's defeat at this trial," Woods told The Advocate. "This case was never limited to only Log Cabin members. And the request for a stay ignores the harm that would be suffered by current and potential service members during a period of the stay."

In a late Thursday statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the filing "in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT — indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy."

But Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson said the Obama administration "had a choice to take several different routes [with the injunction], from the moderate and reasonable to the extremely ridiculous. It appears that they decided to go with the latter end of the spectrum."

Nicholson said the DOJ's filing further erodes faith in the administration for many gays and lesbians seeking substantive change. "Lately a lot of us were holding out hope that there would be a semi-reasonable response to this judicial victory. It appears that [Obama] might be disappointing us yet again," he said.

The Justice Department's arguments against an injunction come two days after legislative repeal of DADT was blocked in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster of the defense authorization bill, of which a repeal on the ban against openly gay service members is a component.

In Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled earlier this month that the DADT statute, passed by Congress in 1993, violates free speech and due process rights of gay service members. She also ruled that LCR is entitled to a permanent injunction against DADT and gave Justice Department attorneys until Thursday to object to Log Cabin's proposed judgment in the case.

The Justice Department has argued that Phillips does not have the authority to issue a sweeping injunction against the ban on openly gay service members (Phillips rejected that argument in a February court hearing).

"[DOJ] has ignored all the law about deference to the military. [Judge Phillips] said before that deference does not mean abdication when constitutional rights were involved," Woods said.

The Justice Department has not yet filed an appeal in the case.

Among the government’s arguments in Thursday's filing, Freeborne wrote that an injunction would preclude the government from litigating other legal challenges to DADT, as well as prevent it from considering the terms of a stay banning discharges of gay soldiers. An immediate halt of discharges, they argued, would jeopardize successful implementation of repeal by interfering with the “ability of the Department of Defense to develop necessary policies, regulations, and training and guidance to accommodate a change in the DADT law and policy.”

“Contrary to [LCR's] repeated suggestions that the Court can simply order the immediate cessation of DADT without any disruption of the military’s operations,” Freeborne wrote, “the Secretary of Defense has stated that, to be successful in implementing a change to the DADT law and policy, the Department of Defense must ‘understand all issues and potential impacts associated with repeal of the law and how to manage implementation in a way that minimizes disruption to a force engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe.’”

Woods criticized that argument as a been-there, done-that tactic. "It's the same argument they made before the trial. 'Let us have time to study it. Congress is considering repealing it.' Judge Phillips has rejected it before."

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Saint - Oral History

Powerful Video - It Gets Better...

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Has to Go

From NYTimes.com:
By JONATHAN HOPKINS
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Since the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (D.A.D.T.) was enacted by Congress, more than 14,000 gay service members have been discharged, at a cost to taxpayers of $363 million over the last decade. I am one of them. I was discharged just one month ago.

Photo Courtesy of Jonathan Hopkins I am a 31-year-old West Point graduate who spent nine years in the military, served as a platoon leader in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy and commanded both a Stryker Infantry Company and a brigade headquarters company in Alaska.

Many people do not even realize the D.A.D.T. policy is still being enforced, especially in light of recent legal rulings, or they think the policy merely asks us not to talk about it. But it goes much further, denying even our ability to exist legally within the military, regardless of the quality of our performance.

As a result, it makes any gay service member a target of anyone who chooses to make an accusation, or a casualty of any unlucky combination of facts that might expose him or her. All someone has to do is to be considered minimally reliable to report a service member as being gay. An investigation results.


I have always told people when discussing the military that “it makes everyone better, teaching us all important values like teamwork and selflessness.”

But if you are gay, I am no longer sure that is entirely accurate. People in the military are not trained to be liars. Our mission is not subterfuge, but that is what this policy forces those of us who are gay to become party to, and the cognitive dissonance is immense. We are trained to manage the fear that may descend during a firefight, but we do not expect to live under the daily fear that our peers may sense something different about us and report us as being gay.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be
While I spent every hour at work trying, like all my peers, to be the perfect Army officer, taking care of and leading our soldiers, I also spent every day being paranoid, worrying about who suspected I was gay, and what they might do about it.

The paranoia is sickening, and it just eats you from within. Some quietly slip out of the service while others, indoctrinated to serve a cause that is just, stick it out.

The Department of Defense spends millions of dollars and dedicates immense amounts of time to ensure the psychological welfare of our service members remains sound. Except if you are gay. Some gay members of the Armed Services suffer from depression because they try to deal with being all they can be at work, but are unable to live a life that could make them happy.

Unfortunately, from 1993 until the spring of 2010, you could be reported as gay by your chaplain, your doctor and even your psychiatrist. Nowhere in the organization could you be safe if you were gay, even when the assistance provided could be vital.

A colleague of mine relayed a story of a soldier whose boyfriend was killed by a roadside blast while both were deployed. The only person the grieving soldier could safely talk to was an Australian officer he didn’t even know. His most trusted teammates — members of his unit — were not allowed to be there for him when he needed them most.

Failure Is the Only Option
There is no way that a gay service member can navigate this policy with honor, integrity, or self-respect intact. Soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen traditionally know virtually everything about one another. The military is inherently a personal affair. Thus, if you are gay and choose to have a relationship, you must isolate yourself from your otherwise inclusive and close-knit organization, then lie about your “housemate” and cover up where you socialized. There go the Army values of “honor” and “integrity” — values we all believe very deeply in.

If you attempt to comply, somehow, with the policy, you dedicate yourself to the most epic and despicably unnecessary sense of loneliness one can imagine, while working in a profession in which you desperately need the nurturing support of others. I know; I’ve been there. You are forced to lie when soldiers, peers or superiors ask you why you’re not married, or anything else about your personal life.

Many service members end up in a no-man’s-land: they break the rules (i.e. have relationships), but can never maintain something meaningful and long-lasting because of the pervasive environment of fear and deception that they have to maintain. Any route you take, you may be able to maintain your career, but you are destroyed bit by bit on the inside each step of the way. Part of you always feels stigmatized or ashamed for something you cannot change, no matter how badly you might want to.

And no matter what you do, you are somehow failing to live up to the military’s highest stated values, because you are an outlaw as a gay soldier from the day you step into the military. When told to “do the right thing” you are left with no feasible option meet that demand.

I Already Lived in a Post-D.A.D.T. Army
In my case, after the military learned from others that I was gay, I served for 14 more months during investigations and administrative actions to discharge me. Everyone knew, so, essentially, I lived for more than a year in a post-D.A.D.T. work environment.

During that time, I was part of a two-officer team planning our 4,000-soldier brigade’s redeployment from Iraq to Alaska. I did initial planning in relation to the Iraqi elections. I served for one year in the brigade’s planning cell in Alaska after return from deployment. The unit could have sent me somewhere else, but chose not to because they felt I made a critical contribution to the organization and they had always respected my work.

Four months after being found out, and 10 months prior to leaving the Army, I found myself with a boyfriend for the first time in my life, because I was no longer scared to have such a relationship. He and I attended social events and dinners with my peers. I talked about him at work. My life became one of full disclosure.

Amid all of that, the unit continued to function and I continued to be respected for the work I did. Many, from both companies I commanded, approached me to say that they didn’t care if I was gay — they thought I was one of the best commanders they’d ever had. And unbeknownst to me, many had guessed I was probably gay all along. Most didn’t care about my sexuality. I was accepted by most of them, as was my boyfriend, and I had never been happier in the military. Nothing collapsed, no one stopped talking to me, the Earth spun on its axis, and the unit prepared to fight another day.

There are parts of my story in the lives of all of the gay service members who continue to serve in our military — and there are 65,000, according to the Urban Institute. Their commitment is immense. So dedicated are they to service that they eschew the rights that every other soldier enjoys. Their road is more difficult than most people realize, and we reward their exceptionally dedicated and selfless service by undermining their ability to live a happy, honest, and fulfilling life — all of which would actually make them even better soldiers.

I wish that they could tell their own stories, but in a master-stroke of policy-making, they are under a gag order that prevents from discussing D.A.D.T.’s impact upon them, if they wish to keep their job serving their country. So I have tried to tell part of my story.

A Policy Without Credible Rationale
A remarkably consistent string of research reports have shown that there is no link between openly gay service members in the United States or foreign militaries having a negative effect on performance. Nevertheless, the “cohesion” argument remains the primary defense for the policy.

But in the most recent Gallup survey of American attitudes toward gays in the military, every demographic broadly supports gays serving openly. Among 18-year-olds to 29-year-olds — who make up the vast majority of the military force — support for overturning the current policy is at 79 percent.

What this shows, in fact, is that upon entrance into the military, we are indoctrinating an otherwise very accepting group of Americans to be more prejudiced than they were when they entered the military. Meanwhile, some leaders paradoxically argue that we cannot make the change because the force is not ready for it.

Using this logic, racial desegregation of the military would have happened in MY lifetime, not my grandfather’s, simply because an outspoken but small minority would remain opposed to it long after 1948. In that case, we made a change simply because it was right — and enforced the standards in a very rule-abiding military — through the virtue of leadership.

We spent very little time surveying our troops before desegregation, integration of women in the service, women at the military academies, women in fighter jets, women on aircraft carriers or submarines. The most instructive question whenever discrimination was an issue has always been simple: “Can this person do the job?”

The current D.A.D.T. policy deprives us of even being able to make an informed decision. It functions through ignorance, which begets stereotypes without fact. In turn that prejudice, from which good people are forced to suffer.

The words of Harvey Milk actually ring very true: “I would like to see every gay doctor come out, every gay lawyer, every gay architect come out, stand up and let that world know. That would do more to end prejudice overnight than anybody would imagine.”

It is for this reason alone that supporters of discrimination seek to keep the truth hidden, gay service members in fear, and the current D.A.D.T. policy in effect. The only accomplishment of the policy is mandatory ignorance.

Jonathan Hopkins is a former United States Army captain who was honorably discharged in August 2010. Mr. Hopkins graduated fourth in his class at West Point. He was deployed three times to Iraq and Afghanistan, earning three Bronze Stars, including one for valor. He is now a graduate student at Georgetown University’s security studies program.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Constitution does not ban sex bias, Scalia says

From sfgate.com: "The U.S. Constitution does not outlaw sex discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a law school audience in San Francisco on Friday.

"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures," Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court's conservative wing, is also its most outspoken advocate of "originalism," the doctrine that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of those who drafted it.

The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."

The court has not applied the same exacting standard to discrimination based on sexual orientation, an issue it could reach in several cases now in lower courts, including the dispute over California's ban on same-sex marriage.

But when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against "a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

Scalia said Friday he's not a purist and is generally willing to accept long-standing court precedents that contradict his views. One exception, he said, is abortion, in which he continues to advocate overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and later rulings that have narrowed but not eliminated the constitutional right to terminate one's pregnancy.

He derided the court's 1992 Casey decision, which allowed states to restrict abortion as long as they did not place an "undue burden" on women's access to the procedure.

Having to decide whether a new staffing requirement for abortion facilities, for example, imposes an undue burden "puts me in the position of being a legislator rather than a judge," he said. "That's not law, and I won't do it."

He also described the legal underpinnings of the court's 1965 ruling declaring a constitutional right of privacy - the basis for Roe vs. Wade - as a "total absurdity."

Scalia is the longest-serving justice on the current court. He spoke to an auditorium filled with law students on the 24th anniversary of his unanimous Senate confirmation, after his appointment by President Ronald Reagan.

He said most of his views haven't changed since then, but one exception is the idea of allowing cameras in the court, which he supported when he was appointed. The issue resurfaced in January when a 5-4 majority, including Scalia, vetoed a federal judge's plan to allow closed-circuit televising of the same-sex-marriage trial in San Francisco.

"If I really thought it would educate the American people, I would remain in favor of it," he told the students. But instead of educational gavel-to-gavel coverage, he said, most people would see 30-second snippets on the nightly news that would "distort the public perception of the court."

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

I'm So Straight

Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal

From HuffingtonPost.com: "HELENA, Mont. — At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

"There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme
The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

"There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court," Greenwood said.

Story continues below
AdvertisementCritics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position.

"To me, that statement legally is hollow," said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. "The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass."

Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent.

"It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party," Abbott said. "It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is."

Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.

"I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it," he said. "Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?"
Court," Greenwood said.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Judge Rules That Military Policy Violates Rights of Gays

From NYTimes.com: "The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gay members of the military is unconstitutional, a federal judge in California ruled Thursday.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court struck down the rule in an opinion issued late in the day. The policy was signed into law in 1993 as a compromise that would allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in the military.

The rule limits the military’s ability to ask about the sexual orientation of service members, and allows homosexuals to serve, as long as they do not disclose their orientation and do not engage in homosexual acts.

The plaintiffs challenged the law under the Fifth and First Amendments to the Constitution, and Judge Phillips agreed.

“The don’t ask, don’t tell act infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members in many ways,” she wrote. “In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the don’t ask, don’t tell act was necessary to significantly further the government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. Defendants failed to meet that burden.”

The rule, she wrote in an 86-page opinion, has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

The plaintiffs argued that the act violated the rights of service members in two ways.

First, they said, it violates their guarantee of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. The second restriction, the plaintiffs said, involves the free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Although those rights are diminished in the military, the judge wrote, the restrictions in the act still fail the constitutional test of being “reasonably necessary” to protect “a substantial government interest.”

The “sweeping reach” of the speech restrictions under the act, she said, “is far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake here.”

The decision is among a number of recent rulings that suggest a growing judicial skepticism about measures that discriminate against homosexuals, including rulings against California’s ban on same-sex marriage and a Massachusetts decision striking down a federal law forbidding the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage.

It will not change the policy right away; the judge called for the plaintiffs to submit a proposed injunction limiting the law by Sept. 16th. The defendants will submit their objections to the plan a week after that. Any decision would probably be stayed pending appeals.

The suit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization. The group’s executive director, R. Clarke Cooper, pronounced himself “delighted” with the ruling, which he called “not just a win for Log Cabin Republican service members but all American service members.”

Those who would have preserved the rule were critical of the decision.

“It is hard to believe that a District Court-level judge in California knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group. He called Judge Phillips a “judicial activist.”

As a candidate for president, Senator Barack Obama vowed to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Once elected, he remained critical of the policy but said it was the role of Congress to change the law; the Justice Department has continued to defend the law in court.

In February, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked Congress to allow gays to serve openly by repealing the law. The House has voted for repeal, but the Senate has not yet acted.

Richard Socarides, a lawyer who served as an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues when the policy was passed into law, said the legal action was long overdue. “The president has said he opposes the policy, yet he has defended it in court. Now that he’s lost, and resoundingly so, he must stop enforcing it.”

The case, which was heard in July, involved testimony from six military officers who had been discharged because of the policy. One, Michael Almy, was an Air Force major who was serving his third tour of duty in Iraq when someone using his computer found at least one message to a man discussing homosexual conduct.

Another plaintiff, John Nicholson, was going through training for intelligence work in the Army and tried to conceal his sexual orientation by writing to a friend in Portuguese. A fellow service member who was also fluent in that language, however, read the letter on his desk and rumors spread throughout his unit.

When Mr. Nicholson asked a platoon sergeant to help quash the rumors, the sergeant instead informed his superiors, who initiated discharge proceedings.