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.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Male Adult Video Star Suffers "Broken Dick" on Set - Rushed to Hospital with bleeding dick
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Lure hearing ends; Judge to consider testimony regarding downtown St. Louis nightclub's liquor license
From Stltoday.com: "ST. LOUIS - The owners and attorneys of Lure Nightclub - the last of three downtown clubs once targeted by the city - defended themselves today against city allegations that the club attracts violent behavior and allows drunken, lewd and harassing acts by patrons or staff.
Municipal Judge Margaret Walsh presided over the Excise Commission hearing. Walsh could suspend Lure's liquor license, revoke, or even shut Lure down.
Assistant City Counselor Dan Emerson represented the Excise Commission, and tried to tie a string of downtown incidents to the Washington Avenue club. He called police officers to testify that bar patrons stopped traffic, brawled in the street, exposed themselves and even shot an assault rifle at officers.
Lure attorneys John Bouhasin and former Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr., on the other hand, forced officers to admit, time and again, that they did not actually see the suspects leaving Lure before the officers witnessed the events.
Emerson even withdrew one of the five charges - that a November 5 shooting was tied to the club. Lure, said Bouhasin and Bosley, was not open that night.
And that withdrawal, Bosley told the judge, underscored the mistreatment Lure has received. The charges, he said, were "unfounded," and based on "innuendo."
"Where do the owners of Lure go to get their good name back?" he asked Walsh. "This has cost our clients an extremely large amount of money."
There were, however, some lighter moments in the nearly five hours of testimony.
At one point, Bouhasin was cross-examining police officer Kathleen Kueck, who said she witnessed patrons leaving Lure and exposing themselves as they walked down Washington Avenue.
"Like they would at Mardi Gras?" asked Bouhasin, eliciting smiles from the audience.
"I'm not sure," said Kueck. "I've never worked Mardi Gras."
"Have you ever enjoyed Mardi Gras?" asked Bouhasin.
"Objection!" said Emerson.
"I'll withdraw the question," said Bouhasin.
By the end, Lure owner Aprille Trupiano and her brother Nick Trupiano, who co-manages the bar, said they felt their attorneys represented their side well.
"They dismissed a charge already, a charge that had nothing to do with us," said Nick. "And that shows the prejudice of the case."
Emerson wouldn't comment on the proceedings.
The hearing ended at about 4 p.m. Judge Walsh asked attorneys to submit their best arguments to her by a week from Monday. She said she'd rule soon after that.
A separate protest petition mounted by residents also hoping to close the club will get a hearing after that, she said.
Municipal Judge Margaret Walsh presided over the Excise Commission hearing. Walsh could suspend Lure's liquor license, revoke, or even shut Lure down.
Assistant City Counselor Dan Emerson represented the Excise Commission, and tried to tie a string of downtown incidents to the Washington Avenue club. He called police officers to testify that bar patrons stopped traffic, brawled in the street, exposed themselves and even shot an assault rifle at officers.
Lure attorneys John Bouhasin and former Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr., on the other hand, forced officers to admit, time and again, that they did not actually see the suspects leaving Lure before the officers witnessed the events.
Emerson even withdrew one of the five charges - that a November 5 shooting was tied to the club. Lure, said Bouhasin and Bosley, was not open that night.
And that withdrawal, Bosley told the judge, underscored the mistreatment Lure has received. The charges, he said, were "unfounded," and based on "innuendo."
"Where do the owners of Lure go to get their good name back?" he asked Walsh. "This has cost our clients an extremely large amount of money."
There were, however, some lighter moments in the nearly five hours of testimony.
At one point, Bouhasin was cross-examining police officer Kathleen Kueck, who said she witnessed patrons leaving Lure and exposing themselves as they walked down Washington Avenue.
"Like they would at Mardi Gras?" asked Bouhasin, eliciting smiles from the audience.
"I'm not sure," said Kueck. "I've never worked Mardi Gras."
"Have you ever enjoyed Mardi Gras?" asked Bouhasin.
"Objection!" said Emerson.
"I'll withdraw the question," said Bouhasin.
By the end, Lure owner Aprille Trupiano and her brother Nick Trupiano, who co-manages the bar, said they felt their attorneys represented their side well.
"They dismissed a charge already, a charge that had nothing to do with us," said Nick. "And that shows the prejudice of the case."
Emerson wouldn't comment on the proceedings.
The hearing ended at about 4 p.m. Judge Walsh asked attorneys to submit their best arguments to her by a week from Monday. She said she'd rule soon after that.
A separate protest petition mounted by residents also hoping to close the club will get a hearing after that, she said.
City of St. Louis Battles Lure Nightclub
From Stltoday.com: "ST. LOUIS • A downtown nightclub goes on trial today, its liquor license, and existence, at risk.
Residents have complained that the patrons of Lure, in the heart of the city's downtown bar and loft district, fight in their streets, dump beer bottles on their sidewalks and bleed in their buildings.
City Hall, aiming to protect the safety of residents and the image of a growing downtown, is working to shut the bar down.
Club officials, however, have maintained that Lure has had no liquor violations, such as underage drinking. Their club, they repeatedly insist, is being targeted unfairly.
But a review of city liquor commission documents suggests otherwise. The file on Lure and its earlier incarnations — roughly 6 inches thick — shows at least eight liquor commission violations, including one incident where the bar, named Lucky's at that point, served Bud Light to three teens, garnering a city suspension.
And those are far from the first violations leveled at Lure owners or managers.
Over the last eight years, the daughters and sons of Marlene and Matthew "Mikey" Trupiano — a reputed mobster who went to prison in the mid-1990s for gambling — have owned or helped open a portion of at least six nightclubs in the region, including Lure, according to an analysis of state and city files.
Since 2002, five of those bars have been charged with a combined total of more than 50 state or local violations in about 25 separate incidents.
Some of the charges were administrative: The bars were twice cited for not correctly posting their liquor licenses, and, on a few occasions, didn't tell the city that they had hired new employees, as required by law.
But most were not. Fights broke out. Patrons threw bottles. One grabbed a bat from her car. One bar printed and distributed illegal advertisements. And the bars were collectively charged with at least 40 complaints related to underage drinking.
Still, Nick Trupiano, a manager at Lure and brother of Aprille Trupiano, who owns the club, pointed out that the club, under its new name, has not had any liquor violations.
Certainly, he said, his family's bars have had some incidents. "Fights? Yes. Beefs with landlords? What clubs haven't?" he said. "We have this history because we want to keep doing business in the city."
But, he said, Lure has handled recent troubles well and has worked hard to appease downtown neighbors and City Hall. Yet none of that seems to have worked, he said.
"Now they're digging down," Trupiano said of Lure's opponents. "Trying to find everything."
'The Problem Child'
By late July, the city was targeting three downtown nightclubs, not just Lure. Residents had complained about each, and police visits were stacking up.
Three shootings had spurred City Hall action. One came last December, about two blocks from Jim Edmonds' 15 Steakhouse and Club on Locust Street. Another round of shots was fired early one Friday in June, about two blocks from Lure. And then, in July, two teens and a young man were shot about two blocks from the Sugar Lounge, a popular Washington Avenue club.
The city had already sent out nuisance letters to each club, citing them for "disturbances and other unruly behavior."
But after the July shooting, Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, met with police officials.
The city had been working for years to clean up downtown St. Louis, attract businesses, and transform desolate streets into family-friendly neighborhoods.
"If we had these troubles 10 years ago, it's probable nobody would have noticed," Rainford said at the time. "However, having said that, it's our job, and we are taking it very seriously, to keep the place safe for everyone."
The city liquor commissioner wrote up citations for each club.
Owners at 15 and Sugar worked with city public safety officials and bought themselves more time to fix the problems. They agreed, according to city staff, to consider such measures as added security and extra lighting. And both avoided the city citation, at least temporarily.
Lure officials, on the other hand, hired an attorney, former Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr., to defend them. They picked up a public relations consultant. And they made signs. "Downtown doesn't like black people," said one. —"'Jim Crow' is alive and well in downtown St. Louis," said another.
The city was targeting Lure, said Nick Trupiano, because of its "Red Hot Thursdays," a hip-hop music night that attracted a primarily black audience.
Besides, he said, he and his siblings have owned and run a lot of clubs. And they've never before been called out as "the problem child."
But the city has targeted a Trupiano club before.
demise of dolce
Liquor commission workers say they get few complaints about the vast majority of the city's 850 bars, restaurants and package liquor stores. "It's the few that cause the biggest problems," said Commissioner Bob Kraiberg.
The first version of Lucky's, at Laclede's Landing, was charged with its first underage drinking violation just months after it opened in late 2001. By the time it closed, in 2005, it had at least 14 underage sales or drinking violations.
The city suspended two other Trupiano clubs following underage drinking charges. And at one, the Bubble Room in Kirkwood, the state revoked the liquor license of Anthony Trupiano, Nick's brother, in 2006.
But it is the closure of Dolce, at 200 North Broadway downtown, that bears the closest resemblance to the issues at Lure.
Neighbors began grumbling about the chic new club early in 2008. Then, after 1 a.m. one April night that year, residents flagged down a police cruiser. A "large crowd was standing in front of the club yelling and screaming for no apparent reason," Officer Aundre Smith said in a police report.
A resident described the scene as 80 to 100 people, 12 policemen, a barking police dog, a police wagon and a helicopter overhead, shining a spotlight below, according to the city file.
Within the next few days, seven residents wrote letters to city Alderman Phyllis Young.
"When is enough enough?" asked resident Stacey Howlett. "I feel as if it is only a matter of time before something happens to me. I want to be a city dweller, but I simply don't feel safe in the city anymore."
Two months later, Anthony Trupiano, Dolce co-owner Rob Olsen — who also manages Lure — and another owner sent a letter to the city saying Dolce was closing.
Nick Trupiano said it's not fair to judge a club by the bad behavior of a few patrons. Nor is it fair, he said, for a community to listen to the complaints of what he says are just a few individuals.
The Trupianos will make their case at 10 a.m. today, at a liquor commission hearing in front of a judge in City Hall. They are anxious for it to be over.
"We did (expletive) $78 two Fridays ago! We're losing $10,000 a week, minimum," he said. "What bank do I go to get my reputation back?"
Meanwhile, authorities worry about what might happen if Lure stays open.
Early on Feb. 19, a Lure brawl spilled into the middle of Washington Avenue, where police found a woman beating another in the face with a "Rawlings Tino Martinez souvenir 'Big Stick' baseball bat" that she had gone to her car to get, according to the police report. Another woman was sitting by the side, "bleeding profusely" from her forehead.
Police Lt. Angela Coonce, in an e-mail sent to officers early that morning entitled "Club Lure Insanity," wrote that every available 4th District car responded, and estimated that four times the club's capacity was "crammed inside."
"There would have been no way we could have controlled the crowd tonight if more fights broke out," she concluded. "We were lucky."
Residents have complained that the patrons of Lure, in the heart of the city's downtown bar and loft district, fight in their streets, dump beer bottles on their sidewalks and bleed in their buildings.
City Hall, aiming to protect the safety of residents and the image of a growing downtown, is working to shut the bar down.
Club officials, however, have maintained that Lure has had no liquor violations, such as underage drinking. Their club, they repeatedly insist, is being targeted unfairly.
But a review of city liquor commission documents suggests otherwise. The file on Lure and its earlier incarnations — roughly 6 inches thick — shows at least eight liquor commission violations, including one incident where the bar, named Lucky's at that point, served Bud Light to three teens, garnering a city suspension.
And those are far from the first violations leveled at Lure owners or managers.
Over the last eight years, the daughters and sons of Marlene and Matthew "Mikey" Trupiano — a reputed mobster who went to prison in the mid-1990s for gambling — have owned or helped open a portion of at least six nightclubs in the region, including Lure, according to an analysis of state and city files.
Since 2002, five of those bars have been charged with a combined total of more than 50 state or local violations in about 25 separate incidents.
Some of the charges were administrative: The bars were twice cited for not correctly posting their liquor licenses, and, on a few occasions, didn't tell the city that they had hired new employees, as required by law.
But most were not. Fights broke out. Patrons threw bottles. One grabbed a bat from her car. One bar printed and distributed illegal advertisements. And the bars were collectively charged with at least 40 complaints related to underage drinking.
Still, Nick Trupiano, a manager at Lure and brother of Aprille Trupiano, who owns the club, pointed out that the club, under its new name, has not had any liquor violations.
Certainly, he said, his family's bars have had some incidents. "Fights? Yes. Beefs with landlords? What clubs haven't?" he said. "We have this history because we want to keep doing business in the city."
But, he said, Lure has handled recent troubles well and has worked hard to appease downtown neighbors and City Hall. Yet none of that seems to have worked, he said.
"Now they're digging down," Trupiano said of Lure's opponents. "Trying to find everything."
'The Problem Child'
By late July, the city was targeting three downtown nightclubs, not just Lure. Residents had complained about each, and police visits were stacking up.
Three shootings had spurred City Hall action. One came last December, about two blocks from Jim Edmonds' 15 Steakhouse and Club on Locust Street. Another round of shots was fired early one Friday in June, about two blocks from Lure. And then, in July, two teens and a young man were shot about two blocks from the Sugar Lounge, a popular Washington Avenue club.
The city had already sent out nuisance letters to each club, citing them for "disturbances and other unruly behavior."
But after the July shooting, Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, met with police officials.
The city had been working for years to clean up downtown St. Louis, attract businesses, and transform desolate streets into family-friendly neighborhoods.
"If we had these troubles 10 years ago, it's probable nobody would have noticed," Rainford said at the time. "However, having said that, it's our job, and we are taking it very seriously, to keep the place safe for everyone."
The city liquor commissioner wrote up citations for each club.
Owners at 15 and Sugar worked with city public safety officials and bought themselves more time to fix the problems. They agreed, according to city staff, to consider such measures as added security and extra lighting. And both avoided the city citation, at least temporarily.
Lure officials, on the other hand, hired an attorney, former Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr., to defend them. They picked up a public relations consultant. And they made signs. "Downtown doesn't like black people," said one. —"'Jim Crow' is alive and well in downtown St. Louis," said another.
The city was targeting Lure, said Nick Trupiano, because of its "Red Hot Thursdays," a hip-hop music night that attracted a primarily black audience.
Besides, he said, he and his siblings have owned and run a lot of clubs. And they've never before been called out as "the problem child."
But the city has targeted a Trupiano club before.
demise of dolce
Liquor commission workers say they get few complaints about the vast majority of the city's 850 bars, restaurants and package liquor stores. "It's the few that cause the biggest problems," said Commissioner Bob Kraiberg.
The first version of Lucky's, at Laclede's Landing, was charged with its first underage drinking violation just months after it opened in late 2001. By the time it closed, in 2005, it had at least 14 underage sales or drinking violations.
The city suspended two other Trupiano clubs following underage drinking charges. And at one, the Bubble Room in Kirkwood, the state revoked the liquor license of Anthony Trupiano, Nick's brother, in 2006.
But it is the closure of Dolce, at 200 North Broadway downtown, that bears the closest resemblance to the issues at Lure.
Neighbors began grumbling about the chic new club early in 2008. Then, after 1 a.m. one April night that year, residents flagged down a police cruiser. A "large crowd was standing in front of the club yelling and screaming for no apparent reason," Officer Aundre Smith said in a police report.
A resident described the scene as 80 to 100 people, 12 policemen, a barking police dog, a police wagon and a helicopter overhead, shining a spotlight below, according to the city file.
Within the next few days, seven residents wrote letters to city Alderman Phyllis Young.
"When is enough enough?" asked resident Stacey Howlett. "I feel as if it is only a matter of time before something happens to me. I want to be a city dweller, but I simply don't feel safe in the city anymore."
Two months later, Anthony Trupiano, Dolce co-owner Rob Olsen — who also manages Lure — and another owner sent a letter to the city saying Dolce was closing.
Nick Trupiano said it's not fair to judge a club by the bad behavior of a few patrons. Nor is it fair, he said, for a community to listen to the complaints of what he says are just a few individuals.
The Trupianos will make their case at 10 a.m. today, at a liquor commission hearing in front of a judge in City Hall. They are anxious for it to be over.
"We did (expletive) $78 two Fridays ago! We're losing $10,000 a week, minimum," he said. "What bank do I go to get my reputation back?"
Meanwhile, authorities worry about what might happen if Lure stays open.
Early on Feb. 19, a Lure brawl spilled into the middle of Washington Avenue, where police found a woman beating another in the face with a "Rawlings Tino Martinez souvenir 'Big Stick' baseball bat" that she had gone to her car to get, according to the police report. Another woman was sitting by the side, "bleeding profusely" from her forehead.
Police Lt. Angela Coonce, in an e-mail sent to officers early that morning entitled "Club Lure Insanity," wrote that every available 4th District car responded, and estimated that four times the club's capacity was "crammed inside."
"There would have been no way we could have controlled the crowd tonight if more fights broke out," she concluded. "We were lucky."
Friday, August 27, 2010
Adult bookstores & Strip Clubs Must Close @ Midnight in Missouri
From Stltoday.com: "JEFFERSON CITY -- Patrons of adult businesses might get a rude awakening come Saturday, if they haven't been paying attention to the news. They'll find the sexually oriented businesses they patronize closed after midnight.
There will be no more lap-dances. And strippers will not be allowed to be totally nude.
That's the result of a decision this morning by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem to refuse to delay a new law regulating adult businesses from going into effect. Like most new laws, the so-called "porn bill" becomes a law on Saturday.
"The law will undoubtedly change the business practice of Plaintiffs," Beetem wrote in his decision, "and they will likely suffer some economic loss. But economic loss alone does not alter the analysis of legal issues surrounding Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges."
A coalition of adult businesses sued the state, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. The lawyer for the group said the lawsuit would continue, but in the meantime, the businesses will have to comply with the elements of the new law.
Attorney General Chris Koster praised Beetem's ruling in a statement:
“We believe that this new legislation passed by the Missouri General Assembly is constitutional and should become state law,” Koster said. “Prior state and federal rulings have upheld similar provisions contained in this new law, and we will continue to argue on behalf of its constitutionality if necessary.”
Koster hired an outside attorney, Scott Bergthold of Tennessee, to help the state defend the law. Bergthold helped write the law in question. He is being paid $150 an hour for his services, not to surpass $7,500 in total fees.
There will be no more lap-dances. And strippers will not be allowed to be totally nude.
That's the result of a decision this morning by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem to refuse to delay a new law regulating adult businesses from going into effect. Like most new laws, the so-called "porn bill" becomes a law on Saturday.
"The law will undoubtedly change the business practice of Plaintiffs," Beetem wrote in his decision, "and they will likely suffer some economic loss. But economic loss alone does not alter the analysis of legal issues surrounding Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges."
A coalition of adult businesses sued the state, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. The lawyer for the group said the lawsuit would continue, but in the meantime, the businesses will have to comply with the elements of the new law.
Attorney General Chris Koster praised Beetem's ruling in a statement:
“We believe that this new legislation passed by the Missouri General Assembly is constitutional and should become state law,” Koster said. “Prior state and federal rulings have upheld similar provisions contained in this new law, and we will continue to argue on behalf of its constitutionality if necessary.”
Koster hired an outside attorney, Scott Bergthold of Tennessee, to help the state defend the law. Bergthold helped write the law in question. He is being paid $150 an hour for his services, not to surpass $7,500 in total fees.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Does Mehlman deserve our understanding?
Ex-RNC chairman out of the closet now, but hasn't clearly split with anti-gay agenda the GOP ramped up on his watch Does Mehlman deserve our understanding?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Shame on you Ken Mehlman - Former GOP Chairman & Bush 2004 Campaign Manager Admits He is Gay After Running Anti-Gay Campaign
From RawStory.com: "Ken Mehlman, the erstwhile chairman of the Republican National Committee and campaign manager for George W. Bush's 2004 reelection effort, has come out of the closet as gay in a column published in The Atlantic.
Mehlman came out in a column by Mark Ambinder on the website of The Atlantic, after the blogger who outed former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and onetime Virginia congressman Ed Schrock revealed that Ambinder was to publish the story. Blogger Michael Rogers was the subject of the documentary "Outrage," a film about outing gays in government who have used their positions of power to advocate against gay issues, which aired earlier this year on HBO.
Mehlman, 44, spearheaded the Bush re-election campaign. The campaign used aggressively anti-gay tactics, including the mailing of a flyer in some states which suggested liberals would allow gay marriage and ban the Bible. Some believe Bush’s support for anti-gay marriage measures carried him to victory, particularly in Ohio, which had a gay marriage measure on the ballot.
According to the Atlantic's Ambinder, "Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would be asked about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8."
Mehlman came out in a column by Mark Ambinder on the website of The Atlantic, after the blogger who outed former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and onetime Virginia congressman Ed Schrock revealed that Ambinder was to publish the story. Blogger Michael Rogers was the subject of the documentary "Outrage," a film about outing gays in government who have used their positions of power to advocate against gay issues, which aired earlier this year on HBO.
Mehlman, 44, spearheaded the Bush re-election campaign. The campaign used aggressively anti-gay tactics, including the mailing of a flyer in some states which suggested liberals would allow gay marriage and ban the Bible. Some believe Bush’s support for anti-gay marriage measures carried him to victory, particularly in Ohio, which had a gay marriage measure on the ballot.
According to the Atlantic's Ambinder, "Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would be asked about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
High costs led to closing of Ameristar Casino Home nightclub
From Stltoday.com: "There was no place like Home when the glitzy, $15 million nightclub in the Ameristar Casino in St. Charles opened during Christmas week 2007.
Months before it opened, fliers circulated around town promising that Home would "reshape the nightlife industry in the Midwest forever."
The club, with its crocodile upholstery, marble-meets-onyx bars and glass-blown chandeliers, brought in national nightclub names. During its opening week music personality DJ AM, reality star Kim Kardashian, actress Jaime Pressly and former Miss USA Tara Connor came to Home. Other celebrities visited over the next three years, including Paris Hilton, Lil Kim, DJ Jazzy Jeff and Pauly D. from "Jersey Shore."
But on Saturday night, Travie McCoy of the music group Gym Class Heroes turned out to be the last celebrity guest at Home.
The nightclub unexpectedly closed early Sunday morning, with a 4 a.m. e-mail from Jim Franke, Ameristar's senior vice president and general manager. Franke said Home was unable to turn a regular profit and was operating just two nights a week, down from its glory days when it was open nightly.
Home had become a destination not only for clubgoers in the St. Charles area, but in St. Louis.
"When Home opened, we saw a drastic decline in business, and rightfully so," said Mark Winfield, who owns Club 15 downtown. "It's a beautiful space."
But Winfield won't mourn the closing of Home. He says he never felt the playing field was even once Home opened.
Home was solidly backed by Vegas-based event company Angel Music Group during its first two years, allowing Home to pay celebrities huge fees.
"They priced us off the market," Winfield said.
Home spent big money to book talent, but there was a reason for it, says Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar.
"We want to bring people to Ameristar," he said. "At the end of the day, what we are is a casino, and we use whatever we can to try to bring guests to our facility."
But the high cost of those big acts would be a problem over time, because the club wasn't drawing people like it used to. Someone like Paris Hilton can command $100,000 to $500,000 just to show up.
A drop in attendance, typical for a new nightclub after a couple of years, and the challenge of recouping its $15 million price tag made keeping the club open impossible.
"We couldn't make the numbers work," Knopfel said.
The club this year tried to cater to African-American patrons with the urban-themed 5 Star Fridays. This switch caused some resentment.
"A lot of clubs will only open their doors to African-American patrons when they are on their way out, and it's not just Home," event promoter Sharee "Mocha Latte" Galvin said. "It's something they all do because they know the African-American market will spend a lot of money, and it's a quick fix. I felt they were on their way out when they started 5 Star Fridays."
Knopfel said, "Ameristar approaches everything from a business standpoint. Is it in our best interest financially? And with that we've done different tweaks. It comes down to what works as a company."
Home will be used by Ameristar for conferences and other private events. St. Charles Fashion Week activities are taking place at Home today as scheduled. The space will not be changed and is not expected to reopen as a nightclub.
Promoter Amin Mohabbat of B&W Productions, who was planning to bring DJ Paul Oakenfold to Home in November, said it's unfortunate the market has lost Home.
"I don't think we'll ever see a venue of that caliber close to St. Louis again," he said. "It was a really nice venue, though it was further out. And now, people are saying, 'Awww, man, I want to go one last time.'"
Months before it opened, fliers circulated around town promising that Home would "reshape the nightlife industry in the Midwest forever."
The club, with its crocodile upholstery, marble-meets-onyx bars and glass-blown chandeliers, brought in national nightclub names. During its opening week music personality DJ AM, reality star Kim Kardashian, actress Jaime Pressly and former Miss USA Tara Connor came to Home. Other celebrities visited over the next three years, including Paris Hilton, Lil Kim, DJ Jazzy Jeff and Pauly D. from "Jersey Shore."
But on Saturday night, Travie McCoy of the music group Gym Class Heroes turned out to be the last celebrity guest at Home.
The nightclub unexpectedly closed early Sunday morning, with a 4 a.m. e-mail from Jim Franke, Ameristar's senior vice president and general manager. Franke said Home was unable to turn a regular profit and was operating just two nights a week, down from its glory days when it was open nightly.
Home had become a destination not only for clubgoers in the St. Charles area, but in St. Louis.
"When Home opened, we saw a drastic decline in business, and rightfully so," said Mark Winfield, who owns Club 15 downtown. "It's a beautiful space."
But Winfield won't mourn the closing of Home. He says he never felt the playing field was even once Home opened.
Home was solidly backed by Vegas-based event company Angel Music Group during its first two years, allowing Home to pay celebrities huge fees.
"They priced us off the market," Winfield said.
Home spent big money to book talent, but there was a reason for it, says Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar.
"We want to bring people to Ameristar," he said. "At the end of the day, what we are is a casino, and we use whatever we can to try to bring guests to our facility."
But the high cost of those big acts would be a problem over time, because the club wasn't drawing people like it used to. Someone like Paris Hilton can command $100,000 to $500,000 just to show up.
A drop in attendance, typical for a new nightclub after a couple of years, and the challenge of recouping its $15 million price tag made keeping the club open impossible.
"We couldn't make the numbers work," Knopfel said.
The club this year tried to cater to African-American patrons with the urban-themed 5 Star Fridays. This switch caused some resentment.
"A lot of clubs will only open their doors to African-American patrons when they are on their way out, and it's not just Home," event promoter Sharee "Mocha Latte" Galvin said. "It's something they all do because they know the African-American market will spend a lot of money, and it's a quick fix. I felt they were on their way out when they started 5 Star Fridays."
Knopfel said, "Ameristar approaches everything from a business standpoint. Is it in our best interest financially? And with that we've done different tweaks. It comes down to what works as a company."
Home will be used by Ameristar for conferences and other private events. St. Charles Fashion Week activities are taking place at Home today as scheduled. The space will not be changed and is not expected to reopen as a nightclub.
Promoter Amin Mohabbat of B&W Productions, who was planning to bring DJ Paul Oakenfold to Home in November, said it's unfortunate the market has lost Home.
"I don't think we'll ever see a venue of that caliber close to St. Louis again," he said. "It was a really nice venue, though it was further out. And now, people are saying, 'Awww, man, I want to go one last time.'"
Monday, August 23, 2010
Fight Over Net Neutrality Comes to Inner City
From Time.com: "
It's not often that the faces behind the federal government show up in places like South High School in the Corcoran neighborhood of Minneapolis, one of the city's poorest and most racially diverse sections. Especially to talk about the Internet, of all things. But this is where the Federal Communications Commission held its first public hearing about Net neutrality, the idea that all data transmitted over the Internet should be treated equally by service providers. In the weeks since Google and Verizon submitted a proposal that would not preserve Net neutrality for wireless Internet platforms like the iPhone, the issue has grown into a contentious one. In a brief speech before the public comment period, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken called Net neutrality the "First Amendment issue of our time."
Almost all of the 75 people who testified during the three-hour meeting last Thursday were in support of the FCC's push to gain regulatory authority over broadband services. Almost all. At the beginning of the event, Zach Segner, a 25-year-old in an "End the Fed" shirt, shouted, "The Internet's workin' fine right now!" Segner, who says he heard about the event from some members of the Tea Party, unfolded a large sign that reads "Hand off our Internet." He says that he's worried about government takeover of the Web. "I don't think that we should fall into a Chinese-style system," he says.
(Is the Google-Verizon plan bad for Net neutrality?)
The majority, however, were on the FCC's side. "Basically I'm unemployed," said a man named Doug Brown. "The Internet is a very crucial to locate job openings. And we don't need to have roadblocks to that." Jamie Taylor, who is deaf and blind, testified that that assisted technology such as video phones have allowed deaf and blind people increased accesses to the Internet. But she said that if Internet service providers are allowed to limit websites that require high bandwidth speed, the divide will increase for people with disabilities.
(See what Jim Poniewozik thinks about Net neutrality.)
Jim Haberkorn, 49, a medical-device salesman who volunteers for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, stormed out of the meeting after having to wait through a series of pro-Net-neutrality public comments — each speaker was allotted two minutes. "This is an absolute joke," says Haberkorn, who argues FCC regulation over broadband may serve to quash freedom of speech and stifle innovation. "What's next? Are we going to say we should only have one car?" Adds Haberkorn: "The world's not vanilla. Equal access doesn't necessarily mean fair."
(See a primer on Net neutrality.)
The FCC, nevertheless, was adamant about its motives. "An open Internet is indeed the great equalizer. It enables traditionally underrepresented groups — like minorities and women — to have an equal voice and an equal opportunity," said FCC commissioner Mingon Clyburn, a Democrat. She added one of its studies showed that a greater percentage of African Americans and Latinos accessed the Internet only on their wireless phones. The location of the hearing was appropriate: the average income in this area is about $22,000, and roughly 25% of the population is Latino. Groups like Latinos for Internet Freedom were present to testify about how access to the Internet have helped members of their community find jobs and connect with family members outside the country.
Michael Copps, the other FCC commissioner on hand, blasted Google and Verizon's recent proposal. "The Internet was born on openness, flourished on openness and depends on openness for its continued success," he told the crowd. "We must not ever allow the openness of the Internet to become just another pawn in the hands of powerful corporate interests. The few players that control access to the wonders of the Internet tell us not to worry. But I am worried. How can we have any confidence that their business plans and network engineering are not going to stifle our online freedom? You know, history is pretty clear that when some special interest has control over both the content and distribution of a product or service — and a financial incentive to exercise that control — someone is going to try it."
It's not often that the faces behind the federal government show up in places like South High School in the Corcoran neighborhood of Minneapolis, one of the city's poorest and most racially diverse sections. Especially to talk about the Internet, of all things. But this is where the Federal Communications Commission held its first public hearing about Net neutrality, the idea that all data transmitted over the Internet should be treated equally by service providers. In the weeks since Google and Verizon submitted a proposal that would not preserve Net neutrality for wireless Internet platforms like the iPhone, the issue has grown into a contentious one. In a brief speech before the public comment period, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken called Net neutrality the "First Amendment issue of our time."
Almost all of the 75 people who testified during the three-hour meeting last Thursday were in support of the FCC's push to gain regulatory authority over broadband services. Almost all. At the beginning of the event, Zach Segner, a 25-year-old in an "End the Fed" shirt, shouted, "The Internet's workin' fine right now!" Segner, who says he heard about the event from some members of the Tea Party, unfolded a large sign that reads "Hand off our Internet." He says that he's worried about government takeover of the Web. "I don't think that we should fall into a Chinese-style system," he says.
(Is the Google-Verizon plan bad for Net neutrality?)
The majority, however, were on the FCC's side. "Basically I'm unemployed," said a man named Doug Brown. "The Internet is a very crucial to locate job openings. And we don't need to have roadblocks to that." Jamie Taylor, who is deaf and blind, testified that that assisted technology such as video phones have allowed deaf and blind people increased accesses to the Internet. But she said that if Internet service providers are allowed to limit websites that require high bandwidth speed, the divide will increase for people with disabilities.
(See what Jim Poniewozik thinks about Net neutrality.)
Jim Haberkorn, 49, a medical-device salesman who volunteers for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, stormed out of the meeting after having to wait through a series of pro-Net-neutrality public comments — each speaker was allotted two minutes. "This is an absolute joke," says Haberkorn, who argues FCC regulation over broadband may serve to quash freedom of speech and stifle innovation. "What's next? Are we going to say we should only have one car?" Adds Haberkorn: "The world's not vanilla. Equal access doesn't necessarily mean fair."
(See a primer on Net neutrality.)
The FCC, nevertheless, was adamant about its motives. "An open Internet is indeed the great equalizer. It enables traditionally underrepresented groups — like minorities and women — to have an equal voice and an equal opportunity," said FCC commissioner Mingon Clyburn, a Democrat. She added one of its studies showed that a greater percentage of African Americans and Latinos accessed the Internet only on their wireless phones. The location of the hearing was appropriate: the average income in this area is about $22,000, and roughly 25% of the population is Latino. Groups like Latinos for Internet Freedom were present to testify about how access to the Internet have helped members of their community find jobs and connect with family members outside the country.
Michael Copps, the other FCC commissioner on hand, blasted Google and Verizon's recent proposal. "The Internet was born on openness, flourished on openness and depends on openness for its continued success," he told the crowd. "We must not ever allow the openness of the Internet to become just another pawn in the hands of powerful corporate interests. The few players that control access to the wonders of the Internet tell us not to worry. But I am worried. How can we have any confidence that their business plans and network engineering are not going to stifle our online freedom? You know, history is pretty clear that when some special interest has control over both the content and distribution of a product or service — and a financial incentive to exercise that control — someone is going to try it."
Ameristar Casino Nightclub, Home Closes Due to Business Decline
From Stltoday.com: "Home nightclub at Ameristar Casino closed unexpectedly, and for good, after a performance Saturday night from Travie McCoy of "Billionaire" fame.
A statement was issued Sunday morning announcing the closing of the glitzy, Vegas-style club that hosted Paris Hilton, Nelly, DJ AM, Kim Kardashian, Brody Jenner, Jaime Pressly, Lil Kim, Wilmer Valderrama, Amber Rose, Tiesto and many more during special events.
Ameristar senior vice president and general manager Jim Franke said the venue wasn't able to continually turn a profit, despite meeting Ameristar's standards of quality and excellence.
"We want to thank our guests and appreciated their patronage and loyalty in making Home one of the top nightclubs not only in the St. Louis area but throughout the Midwest region," he said.
Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar, said "we were down to those two nights (Friday and Saturday) and we had a full staff and programming. It wasn't exactly inexpensive. Originally when we opened, it was seven days a week and it was very popular."
Knopfel said they'd been mulling the club's closing for a while. "It doesn't happen overnight. We'd been researching it."
It's not known what will happen to the massive space, but there are no plans to change it. Franke said "Ameristar will continue to use the facility as an exciting high-energy venue for the property's group sales business," meaning Ameristar will continue to use it privately only.
Ameristar is looking to place Home employees, most of whom were part-time, into other positions within the company.
Arty J, lead VIP host-emcee at Home, said "I've met so many people and gained great relationships. It was an amazing run and I ran the marathon...I really did love the place."
Home opened Christmas week 2007.
A statement was issued Sunday morning announcing the closing of the glitzy, Vegas-style club that hosted Paris Hilton, Nelly, DJ AM, Kim Kardashian, Brody Jenner, Jaime Pressly, Lil Kim, Wilmer Valderrama, Amber Rose, Tiesto and many more during special events.
Ameristar senior vice president and general manager Jim Franke said the venue wasn't able to continually turn a profit, despite meeting Ameristar's standards of quality and excellence.
"We want to thank our guests and appreciated their patronage and loyalty in making Home one of the top nightclubs not only in the St. Louis area but throughout the Midwest region," he said.
Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar, said "we were down to those two nights (Friday and Saturday) and we had a full staff and programming. It wasn't exactly inexpensive. Originally when we opened, it was seven days a week and it was very popular."
Knopfel said they'd been mulling the club's closing for a while. "It doesn't happen overnight. We'd been researching it."
It's not known what will happen to the massive space, but there are no plans to change it. Franke said "Ameristar will continue to use the facility as an exciting high-energy venue for the property's group sales business," meaning Ameristar will continue to use it privately only.
Ameristar is looking to place Home employees, most of whom were part-time, into other positions within the company.
Arty J, lead VIP host-emcee at Home, said "I've met so many people and gained great relationships. It was an amazing run and I ran the marathon...I really did love the place."
Home opened Christmas week 2007.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Target CEO is Clueless: Refuses HRC Request for Donation After Making Making Anti-Gay Donation
From Politico.com: Target Corp., for now, has rejected demand from the Human Rights Campaign that the retailer donate to pro-gay rights candidates in order to balance its contribution to a group backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, an ardent opponent of gay marriage.
In a statement released Monday, HRC President Joe Solmonese said “all fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality.”
The company maintained it fully supports the gay and lesbian community, but decided to keep its options open to avoid the appearance that it made a political donation as the result of outside pressure, “given the current political and emotionally charged environment” surrounding the election.
“We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward,” according to a statement the company issued Monday.
HRC and MoveOn.org, a liberal political action group, have spearheaded petition drives and a boycott of Target since it became public that the retail chain gave $150,000 to a business group backing Emmer, a conservative who also has angered the progressive community for his positions on abortion and birth control.
The donation, which came from Target’s business account rather than an internal political action committee, was made possible by a controversial Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a long-standing ban on corporate political activity.
Target officials have said they gave to the newly formed business group, MN Forward, to show support for Emmer’s record on economic issues and because he appeared to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the race.
After employees and outside groups complained, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued memos to his workers explaining his motivation for the donation and apologizing if it upset them. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to equal rights within the workplace and its sponsorship of gay rights events in Minnesota.
But MoveOn and HRC weren’t satisfied. HRC had hoped to convince the firm to donate $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates and groups in Minnesota to “make right” its support for Emmer. After weeks of negotiations, HRC officials said Monday that the talks had broken down without a deal.
HRC said it will devote $150,000 of its resources to defeat Emmer. And MoveOn members are still calling for a boycott of the national chain that had nurtured strong ties to the gay community through its store locations, marketing and nondiscriminatory employee benefits program.
In addition, Solmonese said the gay community is now pressuring Best Buy Co. Inc., which donated $100,000 to MN Forward’s pro-Emmer advertising campaign. Like Target, Best Buy receives one of the highest corporate rankings for workplace equality issues from the HRC.
While nodding to those rankings, Solmonese said that “before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota.”
In a statement released Monday, HRC President Joe Solmonese said “all fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality.”
The company maintained it fully supports the gay and lesbian community, but decided to keep its options open to avoid the appearance that it made a political donation as the result of outside pressure, “given the current political and emotionally charged environment” surrounding the election.
“We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward,” according to a statement the company issued Monday.
HRC and MoveOn.org, a liberal political action group, have spearheaded petition drives and a boycott of Target since it became public that the retail chain gave $150,000 to a business group backing Emmer, a conservative who also has angered the progressive community for his positions on abortion and birth control.
The donation, which came from Target’s business account rather than an internal political action committee, was made possible by a controversial Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a long-standing ban on corporate political activity.
Target officials have said they gave to the newly formed business group, MN Forward, to show support for Emmer’s record on economic issues and because he appeared to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the race.
After employees and outside groups complained, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued memos to his workers explaining his motivation for the donation and apologizing if it upset them. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to equal rights within the workplace and its sponsorship of gay rights events in Minnesota.
But MoveOn and HRC weren’t satisfied. HRC had hoped to convince the firm to donate $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates and groups in Minnesota to “make right” its support for Emmer. After weeks of negotiations, HRC officials said Monday that the talks had broken down without a deal.
HRC said it will devote $150,000 of its resources to defeat Emmer. And MoveOn members are still calling for a boycott of the national chain that had nurtured strong ties to the gay community through its store locations, marketing and nondiscriminatory employee benefits program.
In addition, Solmonese said the gay community is now pressuring Best Buy Co. Inc., which donated $100,000 to MN Forward’s pro-Emmer advertising campaign. Like Target, Best Buy receives one of the highest corporate rankings for workplace equality issues from the HRC.
While nodding to those rankings, Solmonese said that “before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota.”
Monday, August 16, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
Is Obama's position on gay marriage sustainable?
From The Plume Line: "That seems to be one of the core political questions in the wake of the overturning of Proposition 8. How can the president continue opposing gay marriage while supporting the decision to strike down Prop 8, on the grounds that it's "discriminatory," as the White House said in a statement last night?
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Marriage is a Constitutional Right
From NYTimes.com: "Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.
“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”
The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.
Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.
“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”
The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.
Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Sonoma County CA Pays for Shameful Treatment of Gay Couple
From Change.org:
A few years ago the County of Sonoma in California showed its despicable and ignorant hand when it physically separated and isolated Clay Greene from his injured partner Harold Scull, seized the men's possessions, sold those items at auction, forced them into separate nursing facilities and denied them their due legal rights and protection. As this story went viral in April 2010, the general response both here at change.org and around the country was palpable and appropriate outrage. A lawsuit against the County of Sonoma, along with Agua Caliente Villa, the nursing home where Greene was forced to live, commenced immediately, alleging about 50 counts of various, heinous crimes.
And now, months later, Sonoma County has tucked its tail between its legs and skulked away from what was surely going to be a terrible trial, and settled out of court. In retribution for all their sins, the County will pay $600,000 to Harold and Clay's estate (with almost half of that going to attorney's fees ... why do I not practice law again?). Agua Caliente will pay an additional $53,000.
So that's all well and good, I guess. Money can't ever erase the three tortuous months the two men spent apart, stripped of their home, their dignity, and their partnership before Harold died alone in a nursing home. It can't replace the possessions, gathered over a 20 year relationship, that the county wrongfully seized and then sold at auction. It can't undo the emotional hurt. At this point, all Sonoma County has to give is money, so it'll have to do.
But Sonoma County has learned the error of its ways — either to simply cover its ass in the future or to be a kinder, gentler county, who knows? — and is also implementing new procedures for its workers to avoid this kind of intolerant behavior in the future. This is, perhaps, the best news. They can't really fix the enormous injury they inflicted upon Clay Greene, but they can damn sure never inflict it on anyone else.
Wouldn't it have been nice if Sonoma County had an inclusive policy already in place? Sure. It would have been nice if Jackson Memorial had a gay friendly visitation code long before Lisa Pond was admitted. It would have been great if the Itawamba School District had a strict no bullying policy way before Candace McMillan was even a student. It would have been even better if the Defense of Marriage Act was a thing of the past. But we don't live in that world. Yet.
To Clay Greene I say this: I am so sorry you had to go through what you and Harold had to go through. I can't imagine the level of pain and sorrow you both felt. Perhaps, because of you, and those like you who were boldly empowered to speak out at a time when the system beat you down, I won't ever know it.
A few years ago the County of Sonoma in California showed its despicable and ignorant hand when it physically separated and isolated Clay Greene from his injured partner Harold Scull, seized the men's possessions, sold those items at auction, forced them into separate nursing facilities and denied them their due legal rights and protection. As this story went viral in April 2010, the general response both here at change.org and around the country was palpable and appropriate outrage. A lawsuit against the County of Sonoma, along with Agua Caliente Villa, the nursing home where Greene was forced to live, commenced immediately, alleging about 50 counts of various, heinous crimes.
And now, months later, Sonoma County has tucked its tail between its legs and skulked away from what was surely going to be a terrible trial, and settled out of court. In retribution for all their sins, the County will pay $600,000 to Harold and Clay's estate (with almost half of that going to attorney's fees ... why do I not practice law again?). Agua Caliente will pay an additional $53,000.
So that's all well and good, I guess. Money can't ever erase the three tortuous months the two men spent apart, stripped of their home, their dignity, and their partnership before Harold died alone in a nursing home. It can't replace the possessions, gathered over a 20 year relationship, that the county wrongfully seized and then sold at auction. It can't undo the emotional hurt. At this point, all Sonoma County has to give is money, so it'll have to do.
But Sonoma County has learned the error of its ways — either to simply cover its ass in the future or to be a kinder, gentler county, who knows? — and is also implementing new procedures for its workers to avoid this kind of intolerant behavior in the future. This is, perhaps, the best news. They can't really fix the enormous injury they inflicted upon Clay Greene, but they can damn sure never inflict it on anyone else.
Wouldn't it have been nice if Sonoma County had an inclusive policy already in place? Sure. It would have been nice if Jackson Memorial had a gay friendly visitation code long before Lisa Pond was admitted. It would have been great if the Itawamba School District had a strict no bullying policy way before Candace McMillan was even a student. It would have been even better if the Defense of Marriage Act was a thing of the past. But we don't live in that world. Yet.
To Clay Greene I say this: I am so sorry you had to go through what you and Harold had to go through. I can't imagine the level of pain and sorrow you both felt. Perhaps, because of you, and those like you who were boldly empowered to speak out at a time when the system beat you down, I won't ever know it.
More on Target's Support of Anti-Gay Candidate
From Metroweekly.com:
''Marriage
I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.''
From the election website of Tom Emmer, a Republican candidate for Governor of Minnesota. It is reported by AP that Target Corp., the parent company of Target stores based in Minneapolis, has donated $150,000 in cash and brand consulting to "a Republican-friendly political fund.'' Adding that the recipients of the donation are running ads for Tom Emmer. AP calls Emmer "a fiery conservative who opposes gay marriage...,'' then contrasts that donation with a donation from the company to the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival. (Tom Emmer) (AP)
''[Target Corporation] has given $150,000 to a political action committee (PAC), Minnesota Forward, which supports Tom Emmer, Minnesota Republican candidate for governor. Emmer's campaign has previously given money to a ministry that believes Muslim countries that execute gay men and lesbians are more moral than American Christians. The news is even more upsetting, however, when one considers that Target received a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's most recent Corporate Equality Index (CEI).''
From a post at Change.org by Dana Rudolph opposing the donation of funds to a PAC that runs ads for conservative Minnesota politician Tom Emmer. (Change.org)
"Why they would want to get involved and say 'we're for one person' or 'we're for one party' is really beyond me.... There are a lot of people who take politics very seriously and they take their views on issues very seriously, and they do not want to see their money going directly to fund somebody who is directly antagonistic to their belief system."
Minnesota State Representative Ryan Winkler asking publicly, on Minnesota Public Radio, why Target Corp. would donate $150,000 to support a socially conservative gubenatorial candidate Tom Emmer when his "views on abortion, gay marriage and the minimum wage could upset Target shoppers.'' (Minnesota.PublicRadio.org)
''To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.
''MN Forward's objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats. For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic Activity page.''
Portion of an e-mail said to be a response from the Executive Offices of Target, as posted by BearBunMN on the website MN Progressive Project. The usually gay-friendly company has donated to a political fund which is reported to be backing one particularly gay-unfriendly candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Tom Emmer. (MNProgressiveProject)
''Marriage
I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.''
From the election website of Tom Emmer, a Republican candidate for Governor of Minnesota. It is reported by AP that Target Corp., the parent company of Target stores based in Minneapolis, has donated $150,000 in cash and brand consulting to "a Republican-friendly political fund.'' Adding that the recipients of the donation are running ads for Tom Emmer. AP calls Emmer "a fiery conservative who opposes gay marriage...,'' then contrasts that donation with a donation from the company to the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival. (Tom Emmer) (AP)
''[Target Corporation] has given $150,000 to a political action committee (PAC), Minnesota Forward, which supports Tom Emmer, Minnesota Republican candidate for governor. Emmer's campaign has previously given money to a ministry that believes Muslim countries that execute gay men and lesbians are more moral than American Christians. The news is even more upsetting, however, when one considers that Target received a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's most recent Corporate Equality Index (CEI).''
From a post at Change.org by Dana Rudolph opposing the donation of funds to a PAC that runs ads for conservative Minnesota politician Tom Emmer. (Change.org)
"Why they would want to get involved and say 'we're for one person' or 'we're for one party' is really beyond me.... There are a lot of people who take politics very seriously and they take their views on issues very seriously, and they do not want to see their money going directly to fund somebody who is directly antagonistic to their belief system."
Minnesota State Representative Ryan Winkler asking publicly, on Minnesota Public Radio, why Target Corp. would donate $150,000 to support a socially conservative gubenatorial candidate Tom Emmer when his "views on abortion, gay marriage and the minimum wage could upset Target shoppers.'' (Minnesota.PublicRadio.org)
''To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.
''MN Forward's objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats. For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic Activity page.''
Portion of an e-mail said to be a response from the Executive Offices of Target, as posted by BearBunMN on the website MN Progressive Project. The usually gay-friendly company has donated to a political fund which is reported to be backing one particularly gay-unfriendly candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Tom Emmer. (MNProgressiveProject)
Monday, July 12, 2010
Why is the Military Polling Troops About Gays?
From Time.com:
When Harry Truman wanted to integrate blacks into the U.S. military in 1948, he simply ordered it done. When the Navy wanted women on ships beginning in 1978, it commanded its admirals to do so. When the Clinton Pentagon decided women should become fighter pilots, it issued orders telling the military to make it happen. For generations, the military mind-set has been, If we want you to have an opinion, we'll issue you one. So why is the Pentagon asking troops how they'll feel if forced to serve alongside openly gay comrades?
"This is a very dangerous precedent," says Lawrence Korb, who ran the Pentagon's personnel office during the Reagan Administration. "It gives the troops the feeling that they have a veto over what the top people want." Not everyone agrees. "What matters is the morale of the force in the field," says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military scholar. "The survey is an honest attempt to suss out what the effects on morale might be."
(See a brief history of gays in the military.)
But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. "We've never done this," Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and said they would survey the troops about it. "We've never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," he told an activist from the University of California's Palm Center, which monitors the issue. "I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime."
(See the case of a murdered sailor.)
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, says the poll is simply a political tool designed to ease a decision that would be better made quickly. Instead, it's part of a prolonged process that polarizes those involved and hurts both national security and gays. "If we were asking questions about any other identity group — Would your wife mind living on post next to a Chinese family?, Would you take orders from a Baptist officer?, Would you mind serving alongside an African American? — these kinds of questions make those groups second-class citizens," he says.
But the polling and a Pentagon study now under way — after President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and the House all have declared the ban should end (the Senate is expected to do so soon) — does serve a purpose. "We've had to do these political somersaults," Belkin says, "involving a basically fake study process, in order to give the Pentagon a sense that they have some buy-in." Gates said Thursday that it's "very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges that they see" accompanying such a change, and added that the survey is "being done in a very professional way."
(Read TIME's 1991 article "Marching Out of the Closet.")
But the confidential survey, sent out via e-mail last week to 400,000 active and reserve troops, is already controversial. Gay-advocacy groups obtained copies of the poll Friday and it quickly flew around the Internet. The survey "stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design, and will only make the Pentagon's responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder," said Alexander Nicholson of Servicemembers United, a former Army interrogator who was discharged under the existing "Don't ask, don't tell" legislation. He complained that the survey uses "bias-inducing" words "such as the clinical term homosexual," and focused too much on the negative implications of repeal. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell called such criticism "nonsense."
(Comment on this story.)
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, perhaps the leading gay-rights group dealing with "Don't ask, don't tell," took a tough line against the survey. "No survey of the troops should be done," director Aubrey Sarvis said Friday. "Surveying the troops is unprecedented — it did not happen in 1948 when President Truman ended segregation and it did not happen in 1976 when the service academies opened to women. Even when the military placed women on ships at sea, the Pentagon did not turn to a survey on how to bring about that cultural change."
Troops have until Aug. 15 to complete the survey, which asks some 100 questions about how troops would feel serving alongside openly gay comrades or commanders. ("If 'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission?" asks a typical question. The six multiple-choice answers range from "Very positively" to "Very negatively" and also include "No effect.") A second confidential survey, assessing how 150,000 family members feel about the prospective repeal, is slated for next month.
Congress passed "Don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 to thwart President Clinton's bid to lift a ban on gays serving openly. Until then, the White House had unilaterally barred open gays from serving in uniform. Under the 1993 law, recruits were no longer asked if they were gay ("don't ask"). They could serve so long as they kept their mouths shut about their private lives ("don't tell"). It was a crude compromise, which still allowed the military to kick out nearly 14,000 troops, including more than 400 last year while the nation was waging two wars.
But the public mood has shifted since 1993, when only 44% of the public supported openly gay men and women in uniform. It's now supported by 75%, according to a Washington Post poll. But never mind newspaper polls. Korb, the former Pentagon personnel chief now at the Center for American Progress think tank, is more concerned over what might happen if military surveys like this catch on. "Are they going to poll the troops on whether they want happy hours or discount cigarettes?" he asks. "Where does it stop — should we get out of Afghanistan?"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003075,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29#ixzz0tV8OA5RU
When Harry Truman wanted to integrate blacks into the U.S. military in 1948, he simply ordered it done. When the Navy wanted women on ships beginning in 1978, it commanded its admirals to do so. When the Clinton Pentagon decided women should become fighter pilots, it issued orders telling the military to make it happen. For generations, the military mind-set has been, If we want you to have an opinion, we'll issue you one. So why is the Pentagon asking troops how they'll feel if forced to serve alongside openly gay comrades?
"This is a very dangerous precedent," says Lawrence Korb, who ran the Pentagon's personnel office during the Reagan Administration. "It gives the troops the feeling that they have a veto over what the top people want." Not everyone agrees. "What matters is the morale of the force in the field," says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military scholar. "The survey is an honest attempt to suss out what the effects on morale might be."
(See a brief history of gays in the military.)
But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. "We've never done this," Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and said they would survey the troops about it. "We've never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," he told an activist from the University of California's Palm Center, which monitors the issue. "I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime."
(See the case of a murdered sailor.)
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, says the poll is simply a political tool designed to ease a decision that would be better made quickly. Instead, it's part of a prolonged process that polarizes those involved and hurts both national security and gays. "If we were asking questions about any other identity group — Would your wife mind living on post next to a Chinese family?, Would you take orders from a Baptist officer?, Would you mind serving alongside an African American? — these kinds of questions make those groups second-class citizens," he says.
But the polling and a Pentagon study now under way — after President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and the House all have declared the ban should end (the Senate is expected to do so soon) — does serve a purpose. "We've had to do these political somersaults," Belkin says, "involving a basically fake study process, in order to give the Pentagon a sense that they have some buy-in." Gates said Thursday that it's "very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges that they see" accompanying such a change, and added that the survey is "being done in a very professional way."
(Read TIME's 1991 article "Marching Out of the Closet.")
But the confidential survey, sent out via e-mail last week to 400,000 active and reserve troops, is already controversial. Gay-advocacy groups obtained copies of the poll Friday and it quickly flew around the Internet. The survey "stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design, and will only make the Pentagon's responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder," said Alexander Nicholson of Servicemembers United, a former Army interrogator who was discharged under the existing "Don't ask, don't tell" legislation. He complained that the survey uses "bias-inducing" words "such as the clinical term homosexual," and focused too much on the negative implications of repeal. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell called such criticism "nonsense."
(Comment on this story.)
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, perhaps the leading gay-rights group dealing with "Don't ask, don't tell," took a tough line against the survey. "No survey of the troops should be done," director Aubrey Sarvis said Friday. "Surveying the troops is unprecedented — it did not happen in 1948 when President Truman ended segregation and it did not happen in 1976 when the service academies opened to women. Even when the military placed women on ships at sea, the Pentagon did not turn to a survey on how to bring about that cultural change."
Troops have until Aug. 15 to complete the survey, which asks some 100 questions about how troops would feel serving alongside openly gay comrades or commanders. ("If 'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission?" asks a typical question. The six multiple-choice answers range from "Very positively" to "Very negatively" and also include "No effect.") A second confidential survey, assessing how 150,000 family members feel about the prospective repeal, is slated for next month.
Congress passed "Don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 to thwart President Clinton's bid to lift a ban on gays serving openly. Until then, the White House had unilaterally barred open gays from serving in uniform. Under the 1993 law, recruits were no longer asked if they were gay ("don't ask"). They could serve so long as they kept their mouths shut about their private lives ("don't tell"). It was a crude compromise, which still allowed the military to kick out nearly 14,000 troops, including more than 400 last year while the nation was waging two wars.
But the public mood has shifted since 1993, when only 44% of the public supported openly gay men and women in uniform. It's now supported by 75%, according to a Washington Post poll. But never mind newspaper polls. Korb, the former Pentagon personnel chief now at the Center for American Progress think tank, is more concerned over what might happen if military surveys like this catch on. "Are they going to poll the troops on whether they want happy hours or discount cigarettes?" he asks. "Where does it stop — should we get out of Afghanistan?"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003075,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29#ixzz0tV8OA5RU
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Obama Can't Shake Gay Rights Fight
From Politico.com:
By: Josh Gerstein
July 10, 2010 07:03 AM EDT
When President Barack Obama agreed to back legislation in May that could eventually repeal the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, the resolution seemed to offer twin benefits for the White House:
Quell the anger of gay activists who accused Obama of foot-dragging on the issue, and allow the question of gays in the military to cool for a while, perhaps until after the November election.
That didn’t last long.
The issue leapt back into the news this week after the Pentagon sent a survey to 400,000 troops to assess their attitudes on whether openly gay soldiers should be allowed to serve — with questions being criticized by gay rights advocates as inaccurate, inflammatory and biased.
Next week, a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is going to trial in California — and Obama’s Justice Department is in the uncomfortable position of trying to prevent the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from being overturned as discharged veterans testify about its dramatic impact on their careers.
Some gay rights activists who were cheered by Obama’s decision in May now say they’re frustrated by what feels like a two steps forward, one step back approach to the issue — especially in light of Obama’s delay in seeking to repeal of the policy in the first place.
“This has got to be a nightmare for the White House political office, especially as Organizing for America ramps up efforts to rebuild a coalition for the midterms which includes gays,” said Richard Socarides, a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. “I want the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress more than most. It’s very important that we do that if gay rights are important to you. So I can’t understand why the president’s senior advisers permit the Justice Department to defend this case. … It’s incomprehensible.”
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment for this story. However, officials have said that Justice is obligated to defend any law Congress passes as long as there is a plausible legal basis to do so, even if the current administration disagrees with the statute.
Some lawyers in the gay rights movement scoff at that. They note that from time to time, Justice has refused to stand behind laws under challenge as unconstitutional. For instance, in 2005, the Justice Department declined to defend a law barring the D.C. Metro transit system from accepting ads that promote legalizing marijuana.
For the attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division assigned to handle the Log Cabin case, it’s essentially a Catch-22. If they get tough or confrontational with the ex-service-members or experts called to testify, the government lawyers risk being accused of insensitivity.
If they hold back, Republicans and social conservatives could accuse the administration of taking a dive in a case it never really wanted to win.
“This is a pincer” for the government’s lawyers, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. However, he didn’t have much sympathy. “It comes with the territory,” he said.
Even ahead of the Log Cabin case, conservative Republicans have been attacking Obama on gay rights as well, insisting that the Justice Department isn’t really trying very hard to defend the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that the Justice Department wasn’t going all-out to fight lawsuits against the gays-in-the-military policy, and over a law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kagan denied the charge. “I have acted in the solicitor general's office consistently with the responsibility, which I agree with you very much that I have, to vigorously defend all statutes, including the statute that embodies the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” Kagan said.
A federal judge’s rulings Thursday holding part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional triggered a round of complaints from conservatives that the Obama administration was making a politically correct and less-than-forceful defense of that law.
“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable. The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Gillers said, though, that government attorneys were not obliged to rip apart the opposition the way a private litigator might. “Because you’re a government lawyer, you’re not given the same deference to be a junkyard dog for that client,” he said. “A government lawyer has a broader mandate.”
Written briefs in gay-rights-related cases have already landed the Justice Department in hot water with the Obama White House after gay activists complained the filings compared same-sex marriage to forms of incest and marriages involving minors. Sources say some filings in such cases are now coordinated with White House lawyers.
But the give-and-take of live courtroom testimony is even more treacherous and can’t be vetted so easily from Washington. The lead lawyer for the Log Cabin group, Dan Woods of White & Case in Los Angeles, said he expects the trial to stretch for two weeks and involve testimony by seven expert witnesses and as many as six former service members. Justice Department lawyers have said they plan to call no witnesses at the bench trial to be held before Judge Virginia Phillips, without a jury, Woods said.
With the new Pentagon survey under fire for its questions about open-bay showers and even its use of the term “homosexual,” it is almost certain that Justice Department lawyers handling the Log Cabin case will be accused of asking insensitive or homophobic questions as they cross-examine witnesses.
On the other side of the political spectrum, social conservatives say they’ll be watching closely to see whether DOJ is going easy. “We hope the administration’s politically motivated position against 'don’t ask, don’t tell' will not be a factor in defending the regulations,” said Daniel Blomberg of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The political minefield the trial presents may be one reason the Justice Department has tried mightily to head it off.
Last month, government lawyers asked Phillips to put the case on hold indefinitely because of the steps Congress took in May toward a repeal of the "don’t ask" statute passed in 1993. On May 27, the House voted, 234-194, in favor of a measure that would repeal "don’t ask" next year if top military leaders certify the repeal can be carried out without impacting force readiness and unit cohesion. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 16-12, for the same language.
However, the judge noted that the bills involved have not cleared Congress and that the repeal depends on several actions by the military and Obama that may or may not happen. “Given the many contingencies involved — including the threshold contingency of congressional approval — and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation is at this point remote, if not wholly speculative,” Phillips wrote Tuesday as she ordered the trial to go forward.
Government lawyers also have asked Phillips to deny a trial as unnecessary, to exclude all of the expert witnesses and most of the other witnesses. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, denied all the motions.
Woods pointed to one specific episode that he said highlighted the contradictions in the government’s case. He said the plaintiffs asked the government to admit that Obama said last year that "don’t ask" weakens national security and that the statement is true. The government admitted Obama made the comment but declined to say whether it was true. After a judge required the government to answer, it denied Obama’s assertion.
“They keep saying they have no choice but to defend the law because it is the law and that’s their job at the Justice Department, but the hypocrisy of this emerges all the time,” Woods said. “They are in a very awkward position.”
There are a few breaks for the administration in the trial set to start this week. The location in Riverside, Calif., far from Washington’s political press, should diminish coverage. And the ban on cameras in federal trial courts means TV coverage will have to rely on courtroom sketches.
But the gay Republicans who filed the case back in 2004 are doing their best to keep the legal and public pressure on the Obama administration. The Log Cabin group said Friday that Woods plans a daily press availability after the trial session, that principals in the case will be readily available to the media, and that the group plans a daily bulletin on trial developments.
By: Josh Gerstein
July 10, 2010 07:03 AM EDT
When President Barack Obama agreed to back legislation in May that could eventually repeal the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, the resolution seemed to offer twin benefits for the White House:
Quell the anger of gay activists who accused Obama of foot-dragging on the issue, and allow the question of gays in the military to cool for a while, perhaps until after the November election.
That didn’t last long.
The issue leapt back into the news this week after the Pentagon sent a survey to 400,000 troops to assess their attitudes on whether openly gay soldiers should be allowed to serve — with questions being criticized by gay rights advocates as inaccurate, inflammatory and biased.
Next week, a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is going to trial in California — and Obama’s Justice Department is in the uncomfortable position of trying to prevent the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from being overturned as discharged veterans testify about its dramatic impact on their careers.
Some gay rights activists who were cheered by Obama’s decision in May now say they’re frustrated by what feels like a two steps forward, one step back approach to the issue — especially in light of Obama’s delay in seeking to repeal of the policy in the first place.
“This has got to be a nightmare for the White House political office, especially as Organizing for America ramps up efforts to rebuild a coalition for the midterms which includes gays,” said Richard Socarides, a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. “I want the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress more than most. It’s very important that we do that if gay rights are important to you. So I can’t understand why the president’s senior advisers permit the Justice Department to defend this case. … It’s incomprehensible.”
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment for this story. However, officials have said that Justice is obligated to defend any law Congress passes as long as there is a plausible legal basis to do so, even if the current administration disagrees with the statute.
Some lawyers in the gay rights movement scoff at that. They note that from time to time, Justice has refused to stand behind laws under challenge as unconstitutional. For instance, in 2005, the Justice Department declined to defend a law barring the D.C. Metro transit system from accepting ads that promote legalizing marijuana.
For the attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division assigned to handle the Log Cabin case, it’s essentially a Catch-22. If they get tough or confrontational with the ex-service-members or experts called to testify, the government lawyers risk being accused of insensitivity.
If they hold back, Republicans and social conservatives could accuse the administration of taking a dive in a case it never really wanted to win.
“This is a pincer” for the government’s lawyers, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. However, he didn’t have much sympathy. “It comes with the territory,” he said.
Even ahead of the Log Cabin case, conservative Republicans have been attacking Obama on gay rights as well, insisting that the Justice Department isn’t really trying very hard to defend the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that the Justice Department wasn’t going all-out to fight lawsuits against the gays-in-the-military policy, and over a law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kagan denied the charge. “I have acted in the solicitor general's office consistently with the responsibility, which I agree with you very much that I have, to vigorously defend all statutes, including the statute that embodies the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” Kagan said.
A federal judge’s rulings Thursday holding part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional triggered a round of complaints from conservatives that the Obama administration was making a politically correct and less-than-forceful defense of that law.
“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable. The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Gillers said, though, that government attorneys were not obliged to rip apart the opposition the way a private litigator might. “Because you’re a government lawyer, you’re not given the same deference to be a junkyard dog for that client,” he said. “A government lawyer has a broader mandate.”
Written briefs in gay-rights-related cases have already landed the Justice Department in hot water with the Obama White House after gay activists complained the filings compared same-sex marriage to forms of incest and marriages involving minors. Sources say some filings in such cases are now coordinated with White House lawyers.
But the give-and-take of live courtroom testimony is even more treacherous and can’t be vetted so easily from Washington. The lead lawyer for the Log Cabin group, Dan Woods of White & Case in Los Angeles, said he expects the trial to stretch for two weeks and involve testimony by seven expert witnesses and as many as six former service members. Justice Department lawyers have said they plan to call no witnesses at the bench trial to be held before Judge Virginia Phillips, without a jury, Woods said.
With the new Pentagon survey under fire for its questions about open-bay showers and even its use of the term “homosexual,” it is almost certain that Justice Department lawyers handling the Log Cabin case will be accused of asking insensitive or homophobic questions as they cross-examine witnesses.
On the other side of the political spectrum, social conservatives say they’ll be watching closely to see whether DOJ is going easy. “We hope the administration’s politically motivated position against 'don’t ask, don’t tell' will not be a factor in defending the regulations,” said Daniel Blomberg of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The political minefield the trial presents may be one reason the Justice Department has tried mightily to head it off.
Last month, government lawyers asked Phillips to put the case on hold indefinitely because of the steps Congress took in May toward a repeal of the "don’t ask" statute passed in 1993. On May 27, the House voted, 234-194, in favor of a measure that would repeal "don’t ask" next year if top military leaders certify the repeal can be carried out without impacting force readiness and unit cohesion. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 16-12, for the same language.
However, the judge noted that the bills involved have not cleared Congress and that the repeal depends on several actions by the military and Obama that may or may not happen. “Given the many contingencies involved — including the threshold contingency of congressional approval — and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation is at this point remote, if not wholly speculative,” Phillips wrote Tuesday as she ordered the trial to go forward.
Government lawyers also have asked Phillips to deny a trial as unnecessary, to exclude all of the expert witnesses and most of the other witnesses. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, denied all the motions.
Woods pointed to one specific episode that he said highlighted the contradictions in the government’s case. He said the plaintiffs asked the government to admit that Obama said last year that "don’t ask" weakens national security and that the statement is true. The government admitted Obama made the comment but declined to say whether it was true. After a judge required the government to answer, it denied Obama’s assertion.
“They keep saying they have no choice but to defend the law because it is the law and that’s their job at the Justice Department, but the hypocrisy of this emerges all the time,” Woods said. “They are in a very awkward position.”
There are a few breaks for the administration in the trial set to start this week. The location in Riverside, Calif., far from Washington’s political press, should diminish coverage. And the ban on cameras in federal trial courts means TV coverage will have to rely on courtroom sketches.
But the gay Republicans who filed the case back in 2004 are doing their best to keep the legal and public pressure on the Obama administration. The Log Cabin group said Friday that Woods plans a daily press availability after the trial session, that principals in the case will be readily available to the media, and that the group plans a daily bulletin on trial developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)