The Unbelievable Irish

Just when you you're out, they pull you back in... A great Irish PSA for Gay marriage, courtesy of Chelsea O' Hara:

Aim High

Aviator hopes gay ban will end soon enough for him Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is posting on the Lt. Col. who wants to fly in spite of being Gay.

By JESSIE L. BONNER

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Barack Obama's campaign promise to scrap the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy gave Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach hope. Now the aviator is wondering if the president will deliver in time to save his 18-year Air Force career.

The winner of nine air medals for distinguished service in flight, including one for heroism the night U.S. forces captured Baghdad International Airport in 2003, Fehrenbach is in the process of getting kicked out of the military a year after an acquaintance told his bosses he was gay.

He thought he could hang on until the government eliminated the military's policy forcing gays and lesbians to keep their sexual orientation secret, but now he isn't so sure.

Obama "was someone who had experienced discrimination firsthand and that's why I had a lot of faith," Fehrenbach said. "I thought, OK I can fight this, and maybe by January Obama could be inaugurated and this won't matter.

"That hasn't happened."

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group seeking equal treatment of gays in the military, estimates that more than 200 service members have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" since Obama was sworn into office.

The White House insists officials are working to overturn the policy, but when that will happen is unclear. The reassurances mean little to Fehrenbach, who has flown on missions in Afghanistan and Iraq and is about to lose the only way of life he's ever known just two years before he would be eligible to retire.

Fehrenbach, 39, is the son of an Air Force veterans — his father was a lieutenant colonel who died when he was 9 and his mother is a former military nurse who lives in Ohio. Last week he told his relatives he is gay, was being discharged from the Air Force and was going on national television to talk about it.

"Now, I'm not hiding anything," said Fehrenbach, who has appeared on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC's talk show and remains on active duty at the Mountain Home Air Force Base in the Idaho desert, about 60 miles southeast from Boise. "For 18 years, I played by the rules and I kept my private life private."

Most of the estimated 13,000 service members discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" since the law was enacted in 1993 have opted to leave quietly and close the final chapter of their military careers in private. Groups calling for the repeal of the ban, however, say Fehrenbach is among a growing number who are going public with a newfound sense of urgency.

In September, Fehrenbach had decided to accept an honorable discharge and waive his right to a military hearing, where he would have to lie about being gay in order to stay in the Air Force. He refused.

"I just wanted this to go away, I didn't tell anyone, I didn't want anyone to know," Fehrenbach said.

He quickly changed his mind and with encouragement from five close friends, one a fellow service member, he rescinded the waiver and tried to stall the hearing that would determine his military fate.

The military hearing was delayed until April, when Fehrenbach was told he had been recommended for an honorable discharge. The process could take about five months to complete because of his record and rank, he said; he doesn't know whether he'll be able stay in the Air Force if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed before then.

"I will fight this in uniform and I'll fight it without," Fehrenbach said. "I swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution, I'm going to speak out and fight this until the law is repealed because it is not constitutional."

He said "don't ask, don't tell" denies American service members their constitutional right to privacy, due process and equal protection, and forces them to lie about who they are when honesty is part of the code they serve under.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is representing Fehrenbach while he explores his legal options, wants Obama to begin working with Congress to repeal the law.

"He said he was going to fix it," said Aubrey Sarvis, the group's executive director. "We need a plan and a timeline from the White House on how we're going to get this done."

A bill that would allow gays to serve openly has been introduced in Congress.

Obama's top advisers want the president to move more slowly in overturning the policy than many gay-rights activists would like, citing other priorities including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We have a lot on our plate right now," retired Marine Gen. James Jones, the White House's national security adviser, said this month.

On the other side of the debate, the Michigan-based Center for Military Readiness gathered signatures earlier this year from more than 1,000 retired military officers urging the president and Congress to keep the ban.

"It's really not fair to the women and men of our armed forces to be part of this social experiment," said center president Elaine Donnelly. "Military life is difficult enough without having this additional burden. This is harmful to good order and discipline and morale."

In the midst of debate over whether gays should be allowed to serve without fear of retribution if their sexual orientation is disclosed by them, or someone else, a family rooted in military tradition is mourning the loss of a career.

Fehrenbach's family supports his decision to speak out and try to get the ban repealed, said his sister, Angie Trumbauer, a 47-year-old Air Force veteran who lives in Ohio.

She said she wasn't surprised when her never-married brother told her he was gay, but when she realized he would not retire with full military honors, it was almost like there was a death in the family.

"This is the only thing he's ever known in life," Trumbauer said. "it's all he's ever wanted to do."

Will Obama Lift the Military Ban on Gays?

"I take the president-elect on his word," he said. "I think he'll do it."

So says Aubrey Sarvis, director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network from an article in the Air Force Insider. SLDN has been on the forefront of the challenge to rescind the regressive Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy enacted under Clinton in 1993.

President Clinton was the first major party presidential candidate to court the Gay vote when he ran in the 1992 election. After his election, he went back on his promise to eliminate the ban on Gays serving in the military. DADT was supposed to be a compromise that has ultimately been responsible for the discharge of 12,500 servicepersons, including some 800 key positions as Arab translators, medical personnel and pilots. Oddly enough, the military seems to enforce DADT only when it's politically or perhaps personally expedient. As in the case of USN's PO2 Jason Knight who was recalled to serve in Iraq after he was discharged for being Gay.

Backers of reform said the move toward loosening restriction reflects a change in societal attitudes."There has been a sea change in the way this issue is viewed, especially in light of our national security needs," said Democratic lawmaker Ellen Tauscher."We shouldn't be forcing good men and women out of military service," Tauscher told AFP.

The lawmaker is the lead sponsor in the House of Representatives of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would replace "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

SLDN has a petition to sign and shooting off an email to Congresswoman Taucher couldn't hurt.

I'm pulling for Barack to keep his promise. [Related reading]

Gay Marriage...or what I actually wanted for Christmas

In response to my dear, beloved fellow blogger and tireless supporter, Marc Lord over at Adored by Hordes, I post today on the topic of Gay Marriage. Please read his essay and then chime in here (and there) with your questions, comments, considerations.

Marc's explication, while certainly pro-Gay rights, has the distinct quality of someone who has not walked in an other's black brushed calfskin Prada slip-ons. We live in a compulsorily heterosexual culture--nee world, and understanding what it's like to be constantly on the outside looking in would be difficult for the most compassionate of straight, white, men. And this is not a "circular firing squad" in dissertation form, but an honest rhetorical response. I shall try to address each of his points as succinctly as possible.

1. Actually to begin my arguments for point 1, I have usefully somewhat conflated points 3 and 4 to some degree. Let's begin with Marc's position on the passage or rather repeal of Gay marriage legislation:

...it seems unwise to engineer gay marriage in one leap, to attempt one great span. Not because the concept is wrong, more because a historical analog doesn't come to mind, and it's too much for numerous, strongly established networks of belief to accept. Call them crazy, backwards, intolerant, but winning well requires empathy with the enemy, and the victories which endure often exhibit solid architecture with many points of support. Given the prevailing gaps and conflicts, one might better seek to co-opt or by-pass reflexive oppositions, not galvanize them with gongs in their ears.

"Winning well" is unnecessary and morally insignificant. Opposing thousands of years of religious dogma as to seek "acceptance" is as unrealistic as is the backward-thinking bigots themselves. Playwright/Composer/Lyricist Stephen Sondheim states it well in his musical, "A Little Night Music" when his morose character Henrik sings, "As I've often stated, it's intolerable being tolerated." Acceptance from intolerant hypocrites is as unnecessary as it is undesirable. And "a historical analog" does exist: The desegregation of the U.S. military in 1948.

One might be tempted to put the event of President Truman's Executive Order 9981 as one step of ascendancy in the rubric of the civil rights struggle over two hundred plus years, or start counting in 1868 with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, but where ever you begin to take note of victories for African Americans, one must keep in mind, as long as there have been Black people, there have been Gays. The modern civil rights movement began in this country mere moments, in historical time, before the gay rights movement and all the progress made in both movements has been incremental. It is the time for the accession of gay marriage to be recognized, of course keeping in mind, it already has been acknowledged as a fundamental right which was rescinded by a slim majority of voters.

The Yes on Prop. 8 campaign was participated in, and funded by, to a great extent, the Mormon Church and it's members. Marc says, "They [Mormons] fought so hard over Prop 8 because, as they understood it, California law would require them to perform same-sex marriages." This is an often propagated lie and unfairly divisive element injected into the yes on 8 campaign to "motivate the base" and further perpetuate the "culture wars" republican strategists use as wedge issues.

2. The term "marriage": Marc calls the concept "fuzzy" and defines the current state of marriage as, "...tradition, tax status, commitment and official blessing." The 'official' definition of marriage has changed many, many times over the span of human history and currently labeled "tradition" changed dramatically in the 20th century from the "traditional" arranged marriages to marriage for love. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional in 1967, despite public opinion against such unions by 73% of the American people. The "blessing" is a religious artifice unnecessary for legal purposes; civil ceremonies and state permissions in the form of licensing, blood tests, etc. are the norm in all 50 states. Religious ceremonies must have the proper state documentation in order to be legal. It is of course understandable that couples may want the official blessing of a religious institution, but it is legally unnecessary.

Marc's conclusion that, "...extending the office of marriage changes the nature of family on deep levels.", was not all together clear beyond his assertion that hospital visitation is a necessary component of "family." The American definition of "family" has changed dramatically over the past four decades to include everything from single parent households to Gay couplings and many other configurations of people in communal situations. Family has become commonly, what one defines as family. The legal distinction of marriage is the linchpin which allows for the more than 900 laws, regulations and policies which separate so-called, "civil unions" or "domestic partnership" statutes from marriage.

3. "A rights-based approach..." is supported but compared and contrasted to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves but provided no framework to ensure equal rights for former slaves. Enter the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 which affords the Due Process Clause and equal protection under the law to all persons. Specifically, the 14th Amendment was used to dismantle segregation laws and is commonly used to further privacy rights such as those encompassed by Roe v. Wade.

While morality cannot be legislated, it can be enforced by law. The GLBT community harbors few fantasies of laws changing peoples hearts and minds but it does extend the concept engendered in the Equal Protection Clause and deliver the necessary bulwark of access.

As a small aside, I would disagree to some degree with Marc's premise that the GOP, "...started out with the most reasonable of propositions, not showing their full agenda, building bigger levers, always keeping their end prize in mind." I lean more to the Naomi Klein model of Shock Theory as a device to rush through legislation and policy that led us to our current financial meltdown and the culture war. Just an aside.

4. Here's where I get a little cranky. Mark posits,

"Few Mormons would object to granting medical visitation rights to domestic partners. There should be a law for that! Corporations would assemble more resistance to employee benefits to civil unions than would Mormons. And there should be a law for that! This is ground begging to be taken, ground which builds into the larger cause. Obviously these base-battles won't be won uniformly; there will be a hodge-podge of uneven progress across states and churches. But it will be progress, and far less risky than coming by Federal fiat."

No one in the GLBT is seeking Mormon 'permission.' LDS can object on whatever grounds they prefer but their permission for Civil Rights for ALL Americans is not their provenance and cannot be based on the morality of a particular group. Federal adjudication becomes the bottom line for ensuring civil rights for ALL Americans. Additionally, marriage versus civil union/domestic partnership creates a tiered, hierarchical division. When marriage is available to Gays, it is inexorably linked to heterosexual unions and any legislation pertaining to marriage would include everyone ameliorating specific Gay-only laws. Heterosexuals would be forced to protect Gay marriage rights as fiercely as their own indistinguishable marriage rights. Separating and creating a two-tiered system only promises the slippery slope of Brown v Board of Education and some variant on the BOE "separate but equal" argument.

And another thing while I'm at it...Why is it that Gays are always the ones getting thrown under the bus? Even by the so-called 'left.' The latest bus-tossing comes with Obama and his invitation to anti-gay bigot Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Warren, who has compared Gay relationships to incest and pedophilia, is nice how-do-you-do slap in the face to the GLBT community. Why is it in Obama's new spirit of a 'team of rivals' and "we all must agree to disagree" is it that Teh Gay and basic human rights are simply ignored?

To quote columnist Dan Savage,

" You know, there ain't no white supremacist giving an invocation at the inauguration, nobody who authored, 'Barack Obama is a super-secret-Muslim-terrorist-emails' is giving an invocation. The only people it seems in America today who are expected to join hands with, and agree to disagree with, and make nice with, and just try to get along with the people-who-hate-us, are fags and dykes. No anti-Semite would be invited to participate. No racist would be invited to participate. No fire-breathing atheist, religion-basher would be invited to participate in the inauguration, but Gay-bashers are welcome at Barack Obama's inauguration. It's kinda pissing me off..."

Not to mention that in the arena of " civil rights", it's always Gay rights that get sent to the back of the bus so to speak in the hierarchy of civil rights issues. And that is downright uncivil.

I appreciate Marc's thoughtful and well written missive but can't reiterate strongly enough that separate but equal is neither nor.

Finally, if you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

Rope

And why I am at the end of mine...

Why has O picked Rick Warren, the Evangelist-Intolerant-Extraordinaire to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration? What the fuck?

This is Obama's second choice that inclines me to question his judgment as well as his position on basic human rights for Gay an Lesbian persons. I'm all for inclusion, though my personal preference is a trip to the woodshed, as Obama espouses support for the GLBT. I'm more appalled by this choice than by Ken Salazar for Interior. Where is the civility, the balance, the Left in O's cabinet decisions?

Another nail in the coffin of the democrats spineless response to what is right and fair. The Human Rights Campaign, a LGBT advocacy group has written an open letter to Obama about his choice being not only insensitive, but dangerous.

Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Harmonizing the Gay

Heh heh alert: eHarmony must now provide dating services for same-sex couplings according to a settlement arrived at by the New Jersey State Attorney General's office.

"Until (Wednesday’s) settlement, eHarmony was more like eNeanderthal for its refusal to include the gay community," said Steven Goldstein, director of Garden State Equality, the civil-rights group active on gender issues. "It’s nice to see eHarmony finally go from the Stone Age to the 21st century."

The Boston Herald has the story.
I encourage any Gay or Lesbian folks to get in on the "free to the first 10,000" offer at Compatible Partners, which eHarmony says will be launched by March 31. The tide will turn people. The religious wrong has pissed off the wrong group for the last time.

The Prop 8 Debacle

Prop 8 in California passed, but if there was a reason it needed to fail, this should clue you in: Lesbian Speed Dating (spew alert)

Don't Ask

...I'll just tell.

The 60 Minutes episode entitled, "Military Soft On Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
Is Military More Tolerant Of Gay Members In Wartime?" was a real disappointment. First, in the inimitable words of Stephen Sondheim, "It's intolerable, being tolerated." The U.S.military has become "more tolerant...and...soft," by allowing convicted felons, lowering intelligence standards, increasing age limits (42) and literally paying people to join and stay.

Why? Because George W. Bush and his legions of cronies have broken the military -- not to mention the country as a whole. The military have "relaxed" the witch hunts of previous years precisely because the current servicemembers are overworked with war on two fronts and another one looming.

The 60 Minutes piece was a joke. Representing the government was the infamous tool Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Leslie Stahl doesn't bother to call him on much, most particularly when asked about why Gay persons can't serve and he responds, "It's wartime..."and he goes on to intimate that Gays won't or can't fight. "We need hardened warriors, " says Hunter. Leslie Stahl just lets it go as if it's a given that Gays can't or won't fight.


I am sick to death of listening to Gay-bashers in and out of the service. Others agree. JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI, former Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff says in a NYT article, "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces." Watch the segment and then let CBS know that 75% of the public do not agree with DADT or the "60 Minute" treatment of such an important topic.

Absurdity of the Week

File under AYFKM: Prostitute-patron David Vitter (R-LA), and Gay-Bathroom-Sex-Perp Larry Craig (R-ID) have authored a new and improved Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. The `Marriage Protection Amendment’ is such an absurd waste of time and resources only to be topped by the ludicrous couple introducing it. A perfect item for Dan Abrams segement "Why America Hates Washington."
From the Carpetbagger Report:

Yes, two of the principal sponsors of a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage include one far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex an airport men’s room.

As my friend Kyle put it, these two are “not exactly the poster boys of the family values crowd or particularly upstanding examples of the supposed sanctity of the ‘union of a man and a woman.”

Good luck with that one boys, I'd get Glinda the Good Witch to sign on as a co-sponsor. If she's not available, try The Tooth Fairy.