Editorial note: I will be taking a break and going on vacation starting tonight, and back the week of the 15th. See you all then!
In last week's essay on constructive criticism in the LGBT movement, I wrote on how no one- neither external activists nor traditional legacy organizations- has a monopoly on good strategies and tactics in our movement. Everyone brings something to the table. I also wrote regarding how external netroots activists should listen to pushback and good ideas from our colleagues in legacy organizations. That doesn't mean just good theories of change, but also that folks should see and promote sound tactics when they see them.
And so in keeping up on my end of the stick, there are two important things I want to let everyone know about. The first is today's virtual lobby day HRC launched to coincide with yesterday's formal introduction of legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While it's important to keep calling for more media pressure and pushback, and to keep pressuring the Administration to commit to including repeal language in the defense authorization bill, our side must also do our part to build the votes, and now is a critical time to pressure lawmakers.
To that end- and particularly if you haven't done anything to support repeal- there are several things you can take a minute to do:
1. E-mail your House member and Senators. Then, perhaps more critically, follow-up with a phone call. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Ask them to support repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
2. Promote the action on Facebook (also for those with 100% supportive members). There are also a number of additional virtual actions you can do at HRC's action page here.
The second thing I want to mention is that in a great example of blog-legacy org collaboration, The Bilerico Project (where I occasionally cross-post) and Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (popularly known as PFLAG) are teaming up to offer scholarships to unemployed people who lost their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The scholarships, which are targeted at eight target states, cover travel to DC to attend National Center for Transgender Equality's ENDA lobby day on Tuesday, March 16th. The eight target states are:
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Indiana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
West Virginia
If you or someone you know have lost your job because of who you are and are from one of these states, come to DC. One colleague of mine a few weeks ago noted to me is that ENDA activists don't have our Matthew Shepard or our Dan Choi- well-known examples in the media of how hate crimes and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, respectively, affect people. You could be that person on ENDA and help lots of other people.
Applications are due at midnight tomorrow night. More details can be found by clicking here. You can also donate to help bring even more people, and details on how to do that are in Jillian's post.
Today was the first day same-sex couples could apply for marriage licenses at the Superior Courthouse in the District of Columbia. Couples started lining up in the wee hours of the morning. Below is a picture of Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young, the first couple to obtain their marriage license:
h/t to Cathy Renna for the photo
By 11:30 AM, over 100 couples had applied for marriage licenses and the clerk said she was processing 20-25 per hour. The language was changed to "I now pronounce you legally married" instead of "I now pronounce you man and wife". Kudos to HRC, GLAAD and Renna Communications for providing media assistance on the ground to spread the word about how the nation's capital is now providing equality to all.
For those counting, this now makes DC the sixth jurisdiction in which same-sex couples currently have the freedom to marry, along with Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. Previous same-sex weddings performed in California between June and November 2008 have also been ruled legally valid, and in states like New York and (moving forward) Maryland, out-of-state weddings are legally valid. More and more states are recognizing marriage is about love, and today's couples show that once again. Congrats to all the couples.
Tomorrow morning, the law legalizing same-sex marriage equality in the District of Columbia will take effect, having completed the Congressional review period without incident. That means at 8:30 AM tomorrow, same-sex couples will begin applying for marriage licenses at the DC Superior Court Marriage Bureau (expect long lines). Tuesday, March 9th will be the first day couples can legally receive their licenses and wed. Opponents have filed a last-ditch stay to the Supreme Court, but after four lower court rejections, legal experts tell me there is a very slim chance the Supreme Court will intervene.
Here in town, I've seen ads all over the place aimed at same-sex couples; wedding planning consultants; restaurants and hotels advertising their banquet spaces; flowers and more. One argument that I think is too-often underused is the economic impact of marriage equality. The marriage industry is a multi-million dollar industry. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School put out a report last year estimating that DC marriage equality would result in $52.2 million economic spending in spending over three years, creating an estimated 700 jobs. That doesn't include $5.4 million in new revenue from things like sales taxes and license fees. Based on tourism data, the Williams Institute estimates over 10,000 couples will come from all over the country to get married in the nation's capital. Restaurants, hotels, and small businesses like flower shops will all appreciate the new business, especially in a recession. It's like a small stimulus shot in the arm for the area.
This has been a long time coming, and local activist Rick Rosendall has a piece naming a number of key folks who have laid the groundwork, and a bit on the legislative and legal strategy that has been going on for years. A number of them are very close friends and extremely strategic activists, and deserve a big h/t.
If you are a couple involved in politics (Hill staffers, local activists, etc.) and are applying for a license tomorrow, a few reporters have reached out looking to talk to same-sex political couples who planned to be married. Drop me a line at adambink at gmail dot com if you're interested (and congrats!).
Over the weekend at Rootscamp and generally over the past few weeks, I've been participating in a series of conversations concerning the relationship between traditional "legacy" LGBT organizations- such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)- and online communities. Discussions have centered around how there has been a lot of "infighting" over the past few months. Two prominent examples are the blogswarm last week aimed at the Human Rights Campaign around its strategy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, along with Bil Browning's criticism of GLAAD around The Cleveland Show episode, but criticisms in general- including in my writing, as you may have noticed- have been growing louder across the LGBT blogosphere for some time now.
What is interesting to me is where healthy dialogue turns into "infighting", and why it is deemed critical that progressive movement actors- such as President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders- need a "left flank", but the same does not seem to apply to LGBT organizations.
More on this, along with an interview w/HRC President Joe Solmonese, in the extended entry.
Yesterday, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to kill a effort to put a statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 68-30. The Republicans attempted to discharge the bill from committee, but it was blocked from consideration. The House also blocked the move last year. Folks at Fairness West Virginia say they are confident the Senate will do the same in the coming days, but the right-wingers are planning a rally at the statehouse tomorrow, so everyone's staying alert. This follows the Iowa legislature defeating discharge petitions on the same issue two weeks ago and the New Hampshire House voting down efforts last week to put an amendment on the ballot and to repeal the state's duly-passed law. Sometimes these legislative victories don't get enough attention, but they're important.
This morning in Maryland, the Attorney General, Doug Gansler (D) has posted his long-awaited opinion on whether same-sex marriages performed out of state should be recognized in Maryland. Maryland currently limits marriages performed in the state to opposite-sex couples. The Maryland Court of Appeals is hearing a case on this issue. In it, he said:
...the Court of Appeals, when it ultimately rules on this question in a particular case, will likely apply the principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration is valid in Maryland. The opinion reaches this conclusion in light of the evolving state policy, reflected in anti-discrimination laws, domestic partner laws and other legislation, that respects and supports committed intimate same-sex relationships...
The Court of Appeals would start from the general principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration remains valid in Maryland. There is an exception to that rule if the particular marriage is contrary to a strong State public policy. A statute that limits marriage in Maryland to opposite-sex couples could be said to embody a policy against same-sex marriage. However, there are many restrictions in the State's marriage statutes and and the Court of Appeals has not construed the public policy exception to encompass all those restrictions. For example, it has recognized common law marriages from other states, although there is no common law marriage in Maryland, and has recognized a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece, although a statute prohibits marriage between an uncle and a niece in Maryland. Indeed, the public policy exception is a very limited one that the Court has seldom invoked.
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.
He also wrote that the General Assembly, Court of Appeals, or state agencies (when acting within their jurisdiction) could take steps to recognize such marriages. In DC, the City Council and Mayor enacted legislation recognizing same-sex marriages from out-of-state, while in New York, Gov. Paterson instructed state agencies to do the same, although Gansler wrote that that situation is not analogous because Paterson was complying with a state court decision, while there is no such decision in Maryland. We'll have to wait and see what happens in Maryland.
The entire opinion is posted here. The Attorney General's opinion is not legally binding, but advisory. I'll post more legal interpretation if it comes.
This morning, Lieberman announced he will introduce legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the Senate. Heretofore, the Senate did not have a companion bill to Rep. Murphy's Military Readiness Enhancement Act, H.R. 1283. For a variety of reasons, the best avenue for repeal remains the defense authorization bill which will be coming up in the coming months (if you recall, the Matthew Shepard Act regarding hate crimes protections was attached to last year's bill as a means of passage).
Via press release, Servicemembers United, a lead group on this issue, outlines the Obama Administration's important role in that process:
In response to the opportunity presented by this historic testimony, Servicemembers United recently resurfaced its "Set End-date / Delayed Implementation" model for repeal legislation and made the case for the introduction and adoption of such legislation in 2010. The proposal would see to it that full repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law gets locked in this year while also allowing the Pentagon time to complete it's analysis.
To strengthen the prospects for the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and to reduce political risk, the President can still order the Pentagon to include "Set End-date / Delayed Implementation" repeal language in one of the legislative policy transmittals that will soon be sent to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees by the Department of Defense. These policy proposal packages serve as indications of White House and Pentagon support for policy changes to be included in the next National Defense Authorization Act.
Additionally, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee could insert Senator Lieberman's new bill into the Chairman's mark of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, which will soon be drafted. Such a move, especially in combination with the Presidential action through Pentagon policy transmittals, could turn out to be the path of least resistance for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and could help shield vulnerable members of the President's and the Chairman's own party.
I would say rather than "the President can still order", the President needs to order that language included. A lot of cautious lawmakers are watching that language for signs of what the Pentagon wants, and for political cover. And, as Joe Sudbay writes, if the repeal language is in the bill, it will take 60 votes to remove it. In other words, the Senate leadership and the Obama administration play an important role here.
Related, tomorrow the Palm Center at UC-Santa Barbara will release a 151-page study looking at implementation of repeal in other countries, with some key findings:
The 151-page study, which updates existing studies on gay service members in Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, offers the first broad look at the issue in foreign militaries since Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for an end to "don't ask, don't tell" earlier this month.
The report concludes that in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass "comings out." The report found that "there were no instances of increased harassment" as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.
In addition, the report says that none of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, and that benefits for gay partners were generally in accordance with a country's existing benefits for gay and lesbian couples.
On implementation, the study said that most countries made the change swiftly, within a matter of months and with what it termed little disruption to the armed services. Mr. Frank said the study did not look at what happened if the change was implemented gradually because, he said, "I don't think any of the militaries tried it."
Mr. Frank's report cited a 1993 RAND study on the effects of allowing openly gay members to serve in the American military, which concluded that "phased-in implementation might allow enemies of the new policy to intentionally create problems to prove the policy unworkable." On personnel policy decisions of this nature, the RAND study said, "Any waiting period permits restraining forces to consolidate."
This echoes what Rep. Sestak, who has experience overseeing Navy organizational change while serving in the Pentagon, said during our interview: implementation can be done within a matter of months and without separate shower facilities or the like. And legislative action on repeal should occur this year, not at the conclusion of a "study" next year.
I wrote a piece last week about the polling results and use of the term "homosexual" and how it is both offensive and detrimental to the gay cause. Of course, sometimes the problem is when gay people use it themselves. I was reading this week's NYTimes magazine and came across this passage, from a piece about Broadway play director David Cromer:
The goal that day was for Cromer to live it up and buy a suit for his Broadway opening. Two openings, actually. "Broadway Bound," the sequel to "Brighton Beach Memoirs," was to open seven weeks later; together, they were marketed as "The Neil Simon Plays." Joining us was Cromer's old friend David Korins, a tall, trim scenic designer wearing jeans and a Paul Smith jacket. Offhandedly stylish, he had been recruited to exert an encouraging influence on someone who was not born to shop.
"This is just another way in which I'm a terrible homosexual," Cromer fretted in advance of our outing. "I should have nice clothes, I should be in better shape, I should cook, I should have a nice apartment. I live like a college student. I always have. It's a very arrested thing. It's hard to grow out of that."
Two issues here. The first is all of the "should" stereotypes, which keeps the stereotypes coming about what gays "should" wear, do, eat, etc. As someone who is a rapid sports fan, including football, hockey and college basketball, and who isn't gaga over Lady Gaga, I tend to find these stereotypes both wrong and limiting. On the flip side, when I was in high school, I was an excellent clarinet player, and then learned to play the tenor saxophone. I looked at picking up flute in part because I loved performing in musical pit orchestras, and you often need to be adept at all of those instruments to handle woodwind parts. But a member of my own family told me flutes weren't for boys, they were for girls, and that was that. So I never learned to play the flute because of gender expectations, a.k.a. a bad case of the "shoulds" that Cromer is promoting here.
On the second issue, a lot of my friends who refer to themselves as "homos" or "homosexuals", usually in jest as Cromer does, are the same ones who complain about the media's or general public's use of the term. There's even a widely-attended regular happy hour here in DC called "Homo Hotel". If folks are wondering where their friends, family, the media and the general public gets that it's okay to use the term, those are two likely sources. I've heard the same issue around the word "nigger" used by African-Americans as a friendly term in pop culture while it's considered offensive otherwise. I can't speak to the issue around that term, but to my fellow gays, it's something to think about in our own actions.
Back in November I wrote a piece regarding how DC Catholic Charities was holding poor people and kids without homes as hostages over the marriage equality bill (which went onto pass the DC Council overwhelmingly, was signed by the Mayor, and is nearing the end of the Congressional approval process without any incident). Catholic Charities pushed a red herring, claiming that under the marriage equality bill, they might be forced to end services altogether in DC because they didn't want to be forced to place children in the homes of same-sex parents, even though anti-discrimination laws had already been on the books for years, mandating that. Luckily, no one on the DC Council bought it, and in one of the proudest moments I've ever had of elected Democrats (and Catania, an independent), one by one, nearly every one of them came out and essentially told Catholic Charities to take a hike.
Since the DC bill is set to officially become law on March 3rd and fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky same-sex couples in DC will gain full equality, yesterday, Catholic Charities decided to end its foster program altogether rather than license same-sex couples. As expected, another group stepped forward to work with the 35 families in the program- locally-operated National Center for Children and Families- which will not discriminate. Tommy Wells, the DC Councilmember who oversees the Committee on Human Services, said the transfer went smoothly.
Good. If they aren't in the charity business for charity's sake, then don't take the money. Any group that takes taxpayer money- on the order of $20 million to Catholic Charities- shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in this fashion. And good on DC Councilmembers for taking a stand against discrimination and a false argument.
Last week, I wrote about two efforts to repeal marriage equality- one in Iowa, one in New Hampshire. Previously, the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted down two efforts to repeal marriage equality.
Lurleen over at Pam's House Blend has the news that today, the full New Hampshire House voted down a move to subject the rights of LGBT people to a ballot vote via a constitutional amendment, 201-135, as well as a bill to repeal the law altogether (a law which the same New Hampshire House passed), by a vote of 210-109.
Great news, and go New Hampshire. I remain interested to see how married same-sex couples will play into the 2010 Republican Presidential primary in that state, particularly given that it's a semi-open primary (undeclared voters can vote in either party's primary).
I like to have a lot of discussions around political strategy with friends, both politically-oriented folks as well as more detached friends. I was e-mailing with one fairly politically-oriented friend of mine back and forth through the day yesterday about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the question of issue prioritization.
He wasn't comfortable with me publishing his response or naming him, but his complaint boiled down to why the LGBT movement is prioritizing repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell- which, in his eyes, affects a tiny fraction of LGBT people in this country- over passage of other issues, notably the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), given that employment discrimination at people based on sexual orientation is still legal in 29 states, and legal based on gender identity or expression in 38 states.
I think this question is an important and valid one, and I have a number of thoughts on it.
While it is true that the momentum has shifted from ENDA towards DADT, the work to pass ENDA has not completely stopped. There are a number of organizations out there who are focusing almost entirely on ENDA, as well as activists in online spaces such as this one. Frankly, that is probably a good thing. There shouldn't be one collective hive mind directing everyone to do one thing. There is a diverse movement that is moving on many different issues at once, so calls for "the LGBT movement" to do something, aside from being vague and unproductive, don't mean a lot since "the LGBT movement" never moves in lockstep.
That said, there is the question of resources. As I wrote when raising questions about the timing of the National Equality March and being spread thin, I have never been a "we can walk and chew gum at the same time"- you have to have enough gum to go around for every issue movement, and there isn't enough.
The answer to that is that sometimes this is out of activists' hands. President Obama mentioned DADT in the State of the Union (and did not mention ENDA). The result was increased chatter on DADT for the next several days on cable news, in op-ed pages, polling firms choosing to poll on the issue and release the results, and people like me writing about all of it. All of that led to John McCain's comments, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney choosing to speak out, and so forth. In other words, the President helped kick start the momentum- momentum we haven't had since 1993, in my view- and now that it's there, it's important to take advantage of it. You could say that activists like me calling for the President to discuss repeal in the speech, and institutions lobbying for the same, helped lead to all of that, but there wasn't any one major decision that "okay, the LGBT movement is going to collectively shift to Don't Ask, Don't Tell! Go!". Thus, another reason why attacks on "the LGBT movement" aren't entirely accurate. President Obama played a major role in starting this momentum, and when it's there, you have to grab it, and channel resources to that effect.
The third point I want to mention is on the question of resources and enthusiasm. The question was raised in the same way around how activists working on marriage equality were "sucking the energy out of the room" around ENDA. On this, I turn to the words of Kos- "it's a big internet". If you don't like the direction being taken in terms of strategy or prioritization, you can always do it your own way. I also would refer back to what Chris wrote here- "how to start your own netroots organization". One thing I mentioned in Dallas at a panel on the blogopshere is that a number of institutions- including OpenLeft- have sprung up in response to disagreement with the strategy or prioritization taken by other institutions. Hell, that's one big reason people started blogging. Now OpenLeft even has its own tools like an e-mail list and a fundraising apparatus, and with your help, together we got a public option in merged Senate bill, elected Rep. Donna Edwards in the face of establishment backing for Al Wynn, got every major 2008 Senate Democratic challenger to come out in favor of net neutrality, and other wins, not to mention some close losses like in Maine, and changing the debate on issues like no residual forces in Iraq. All of that came because a number of us didn't like the way other institutions were acting, so we built our own, and so can you.
The bottom line is that there are entirely valid questions about channeling resources and issue prioritization. Some of it is in activists' hands, and some is not, but there is no collective focus on just one issue, nor is it wise to just ignore all of the momentum on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and insist on focusing on ENDA. Opportunities must be taken as they come.
ActBlue's list of top fundraising committees in 2009 came out earlier this week, and what really caught my eye was that the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign raised the most out of any campaign when ranked by total contributions. That's first among all campaigns, legislative or electoral, candidate or issue-based, with nearly $1.4 million raised from over 17,000 people. That includes over $8,000 here at OpenLeft's Better Democrats 2010 page.
I'll never be able to say it enough, but thanks to all of you who dug deep and chipped in, both to the campaign directly and to send me to Maine to work on the ground. As I've written here repeatedly, we came very close, and lost by what I've called a field goal in what was otherwise a top-notch campaign. Since then, we've had other losses, but we've also successfully fought off attempts this week to repeal marriage equality in New Hampshire and Iowa. At the Creating Change conference in Dallas at which I spoke over the weekend, I had some great conversations about infrastructure-building in the marriage movement (example: Freedom to Marry launched a new website yesterday with some great tools); went to an interesting presentation on the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center's Vote for Equality campaign, which has engaged in door-to-door persuasion and message-testing with Yes on Prop 8 voters over the past year in LA; and had some good meetings with folks around repeal plans in other states with constitutional amendments on the books.
So thanks for all your support for to protect marriage equality in Maine, and we're moving forward across the country with your help.
Paul Rosenberg points to polling demonstrating that language matters- support for "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military jumps dramatically compared to when the term "homosexuals" is used. This is something LGBT people and straight allies have known for a long time, but it is still commonly used, and it's not just offensive, but detrimental to our cause. I remember Sen. Sessions hitting the term "homosexual" with a nice long Southern drawl at the Armed Services hearings a few weeks ago. He gets the public reaction to it. Please stop using the term if you do, and correct others if you hear it.
Also, on who the policy affects, I do want to point out that even "gay men and lesbians" is inaccurate, since bisexual individuals have same-sex relationships and are still treated the same as gay men under the policy. Don't Ask, Don't Tell also seriously affects transgender individuals, as the Transgender American's Veteran's Association and the Palm Center rightly point out. This policy hurts a wide range of people, not just "gay men and lesbians".
What is also important about the polling is the number- 58%- which support "gay men and lesbians" serving openly in the military. Just 28% are opposed. 66% think the ban on serving openly is "discrimination". Polling has shown for a long time that the public opposes this policy, and this poll demonstrates that once again.
Back in January, I wrote a piece titled "This isn't leadership" in a fair amount of anger. The subject was LGBT organizational leaders and donors who, in the face of severe Pentagon pushback on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and White House demurring on the issue, along with inaction or setbacks on a number of other issues, got together and wrung their hands over what to do (which became public, to boot). One of my central points is that you have to get out there in the media and push back, hard, or what happens around you will define the debate and the conventional wisdom on political strategy.
Via VLaszlo in Quick Hits, there's an article in Politico with labor union leaders trashing Democrats over the Becker nomination, Employee Free Choice Act, TSA unionization, trade agreements, merit pay, on and on. The biggest lesson that stands out for me, and should stand out for the LGBT community, is this:
Union leaders warn that the Democrats' lackluster performance in power is sapping the morale of activists going into the midterm elections.
"Right now if we don't get positive changes to the agenda, we're going to have a hard time getting members out to work," said United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard, in an interview.
"There's no use pretending any longer."
The biggest threat, of course, is apathy from a Democratic constituency that has a history of mobilizing for elections.
"You're just not going to be able to go to our membership in the November elections and say, 'Come on, let's do it again. Look at what the Democratic administration has done for us!'" Gage said. "People are going to say, 'Huh? What have the Democrats done for us?'"
This is exactly what I called for in my piece, and exactly what LGBT advocates should be doing. Conventional wisdom has always been that LGBT rights is among the issues that hurt Democrats and progressives in the elections, and should generally be avoided, or prioritized way down the list. After Scott Brown's election, to me, that has only become more true, with "We need to do jobs! Jobs jobs jobs!" becoming the drumbeat from the White House, "Democratic strategists" and any number of members of Congress. Part of that, to many, is that "controversial" issues (read: LGBT issues) should be put off.
Legislative action, much less success, on any number of LGBT issues including Don't Ask, Don't Tell, is far from certain, and our side needs to be lighting a fire under the White House and Congress, and warning of apathy from LGBT voters, or the Newsweek prediction from December will come true.
Labor gets it. LGBT leaders: take a cue from our allies and follow their lead.
Last month I wrote about a few updates on efforts to target and defeat those who voted against marriage equality in the New York State Senate. There was good news on one of the fronts last night. Hiram Monserrate, infamous for slashing his girlfriend's face, and for being indicted and convicted for assault, and for voting against marriage equality after literally years of support dating back to his time on the NYC Council, was expelled from the New York State Senate in a 53-8 vote by his colleagues. His lawyer is expected to challenge the effort in court, but for now, Gov. Paterson has called a special election for March 16th. Monserrate is expected to run in the special, but his challenger is Assemblyman Jose Peralta, a strong friend of the LGBT community who voted for marriage equality in the Assembly and has the support of Empire State Pride Agenda. He also has outraised Monserrate and doesn't have the, um, criminal record that Monserrate does.
A friend and LGBT activist with the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens and the Stonewall Democratic Club of NYC e-mailed the following commentary on the race:
The 13th Senate District is gathering around the candidacy of Jose Peralta, a very popular state assemblyman who is running for the Senate and received the Democratic Party endorsement within days of the conviction of Monserrate. Jose has huge support among LGBT people in Queens and helped Danny Dromm become the first gay elected councilman from Queens. Jose has the support of women, liberals, lgbt, many immigrants, including the large South Asian community, and unions. Monserate has Latino men between the ages of 18-50. LGBT community expects to hit the streets in force and will outnumber any of the support Monserrate can throw together.
If you live in the district or are interested in supporting Peralta, here's his site.
Also, thanks to those of you who signed the now-successful Fire Monserrate petition, and to its organizers.
Some good news from out in the states following the Hawaii House's defeat of a civil unions bill.
In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary committee voted to kill an effort to reverse the state's same-sex marriage law that the legislature passed and Gov. Lynch signed last year. It also voted down a call for a public vote on the issue.
In Iowa, where a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality would have to be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions before being voted on by the public (several years from now), two "discharge petition"-type efforts failed this morning to pull a constitutional amendment out of committee in both houses of the legislature. The measure, like a discharge petition in the U.S. House of Representatives, would have required a majority number of signatures to pull the bill out of committee. As OpenLefter desmoinesdem reported at Bleeding Heartland yesterday, 62% of Iowans think the legislature should focus on issues other than marriage equality.
The one other thing I do want to note is that in the House, all 44 Republicans voted for the petition but only one Democrat supported it, while in the Senate, all 18 Republicans voted for the petition along with only one Democrat out of 32. Like in New York State, a high percentage of the Democratic caucus voted to support marriage equality, while nearly 100% of the GOP caucus voted against it, so hopefully more of the "this is all the Democrats' fault"-type rhetoric that focuses on parties rather than legislators- which I criticized here- on this issue dies down some more, and folks learn to focus on targeting legislators, not parties. Of course, I don't expect to hear "yay for the Democrats" after these wins, since "the Democrats" kept this from succeeding, but perhaps I should. Sometimes it seems folks are content to blame "the Democrats" after losses but refuse to laud them after wins. Funny thing.
As Joe Mirabella noted last month, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the GOP presidential primaries in both early states come 2012.
All in all, good news, and kudos to a number of activists in both states.
I sat down this morning with Rep. Joe Sestak to discuss the news around Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and specifically questions around implementation of a repeal. Many of you know Sestak's political history, but a little on his military background. Sestak is a decorated, former 3-star Vice Admiral in the Navy and the highest-ranking former military officer currently serving in this Congress. He also served as Director of Defense Policy at the National Security Council and as policy adviser to Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark, where he oversaw a process, in his words, "to try to change the Navy". I was interested in talking to Rep. Sestak particularly because he had spent time overseeing structural change in the Navy and understands the process.
The main point Rep. Sestak made to me is that the year-long "study" that Sec. Gates announced at yesterday's hearing is an unnecessary delay, and change could be instituted far more rapidly. More in the transcript.
Adam: Thanks for joining me. First, I want to ask about your reactions to yesterday's Senate Armed Services hearing.
Rep. Sestak: I was very pleased to see the significant step that's being taken by the Defense Department to move forward and accept that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has to be repealed. I also believe, however, that the implementation study that's going to be done doesn't need to take a year. I believe it should be done in a shorter period of time. We have many lessons that we've learned from previous areas of integration: African Americans into the military, women into defense combat roles. During 1970 through '74, we had a strategic naval operation by Admiral Zumwalt- this is as I was entering- and he instituted many significant changes in our military and he did them quite rapidly. Now maybe you don't just want to do them with what is known as a "Z-Gram", a message that comes out that says, "implement this", but I believe we can do this more rapidly. That said, it's a significant step that we've taken because it's going to happen, but the Congress has to vote on it, so let's make sure we have everybody there, let's make sure we have the courage to do it and do it rapidly.
Adam: You talked about a "Z-Gram"- what is the fastest process that could and perhaps should be taken versus a long, drawn-out process?
Rep. Sestak: A "Z-Gram" was where the Chief of Naval Operations would say, here's the new policy. The best way to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is to call the flag leadership together and then they meet with their commanders, then those officers meet with their subordinate commanders, and through the chain of command there's an explanation of why and how this policy is going to be changed. You have the chain of command, the leadership including the chief petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, understanding why. Then you set out, on this date certain, this will be the change. But the problem is they're going to study it for a year first, then there will be the implementation. And I just think that's an awful long time to study an implementation.
We are a military that understands processes very well. If anyone can go off and implement something rapidly, it's the military, because we do so many war plans, we do so many contingency plans, it's a part of our culture, we can take how to do this, stick it into a model, and do it in a fairly short timetable. I don't want to take away from the importance of having moved this out there, but at the end of the day, we know this is going to be done. The military is such a young organization, and we're well beyond any previous stereotypes. We can go about this business, and I would like to see Congress move on this rapidly. In fact, I believe it should be in the defense authorization bill, and that would take 2-3 months to get it through the process. It's about time to implement it.
Adam: What do you think our odds are of including it in and passing it through the defense authorization bill?
Rep. Sestak: Well, I think it's pretty darn good. But then, I've only been in politics a few years, but this is something where the Commander in Chief speaks, I think people have the courage to do the right thing. There are those on both sides of the aisle who are still opposed. However, I think at the end of the day, the Commander in Chief saying let's do this, with the military's leadership saying let's do this, you'll find that there'll be more than enough votes to make it happen.
Adam: The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that the Pentagon was considering separate shower facilities and locker rooms. In the past, there has been discussion of pilot programs. Is any of this necessary to go through during implementation?
Rep. Sestak: No. They're serving out there right now. They go into showers, non-gay or gay, right now into sports gyms. It's a way of life. Let's go out and make it happen. We don't need to go through a pilot program. We don't need separation of showers. We're beyond all that.
Adam: If the Pentagon implemented the timeline that you outline, how long do you think that should take?
Rep. Sestak: I would say two to three months. Because you can do this in a nice deliberate way and still finish it in that period of time. Someone used the phrase to me, the military is always "ready". We can do these things. I always remember former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Crowe once said, supposedly to President Clinton, just tell the military to do it and they'll do it. In the meantime, I think the President should consider an executive order, under a stop-loss provision, that when you don't want someone to be discharged while the study is being done, why kick people out that you know you're not going to in about a year? Second, I think those who were dismissed under the wrong policy should be permitted to come back in.
I'm in Dallas this weekend for NGLTF's Creating Change conference, a gathering of LGBT activists- online and offline that's one of the largest around. I've never been to Texas, and given that my flight back home is on Super Bowl Sunday, my biggest fear is that this card-carrying Bills fan will encounter a flight delay and be forced to watch the Super Bowl in- gulp- a Dallas airport bar. Ew. I would love some restaurant recs with good vegetarian options, though.
Anyway, if you're around, I'm speaking at 4:45 PM on Friday the 8th on a panel titled "Reaching Out to the Blogosphere" with Mike Rogers of the film Outrage and PageOneQ, Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (where I sometimes cross-post), and Miriam Perez of Feministing. I'll be talking about some best and worst cases of internet outreach, and ideas on strengthening bonds between traditional LGBT organizations and online activists. Hope to see you there. More info about the conference and registration here.
I've been keeping an eye on the latest developments regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. It's become clear that the most interesting questions are no longer concerning repeal and whether it will happen, but what the implementation will look like, and you can tell that by the signals being given. At today's Armed Services hearings, Sec. Gates is expected to name two advisers- one civilian, one military- to advise the Administration on steps to implement repeal, and according to the WaPo, planning alone is expected to take up to a year. He is also expected to announce the "Obama rule" on third-party discharges, about which the Palm Center says the devil is in the details:
The Palm Center has announced that President Obama's executive changes to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, expected to be announced Tuesday, could significantly impact the lives of gay troops. The expected statements from Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen would protect some service members from investigations based on third-party allegations and set a new standard for what constitutes reliable sources and credible information that trigger a "don't ask, don't tell" investigation. It is also expected that the military brass will announce changes to the adjudication of potential discharges, whose effect could be to require a flag officer to sign off on any discharge for it to move forward.
"This 'Obama Rule' could provide a new standard for 'don't ask, don't tell' investigations," said Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center. "Depending on how it's implemented, the executive action taken by the President could be seismic. 'Don't ask, don't tell' has rested on the belief that the presence of openly gay service members is always bad for the military. The new Obama Rule would mean a shift in the military's focus toward keeping gay troops, reflecting the military's belief that they are as essential as their heterosexual peers."
Belkin also said the effectiveness of the changes would depend on what message was sent by top civilian and uniformed leaders to the officers responsible for approving discharges. "If new discretion is being granted to two-stars, then the actual impact of the Obama rule will hinge on whether the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Service Chiefs send a clear signal that discharges are to be minimized," Belkin said.
Recent media reports have suggested the Pentagon leadership may promote a lengthy process of implementation that would unfold over several years, a prospect that Palm Center experts found problematic. Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center and author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America," said the impact of the expected announcement would depend on an operational timeline that emphasizes strong leadership and swift implementation.
Meanwhile, Sen. Levin, who is chairing the hearings, has an op-ed out calling for caution and deliberation in any repeal effort.
There are a whole number of ways this could be done. It could be swift implementation overnight, or the Administration could slow-walk it with a 15-year plan, complete with segregated showers and pilot programs of integrated units. Or there could be another "compromise". Later this week I'm going to be exploring what the range of possibilities and what an ideal implementation would look like. We still have a ways to go in terms of making sure the votes are there for repeal, but a new front is opening up on how and when repeal will be implemented- an effort which is also critical to keep an eye on.
In what appears to be something of a surprise, the Hawaii House of Representatives killed a civil unions bill today. The Senate recently passed the bill 18-7 and it was expected to pass the House and go to Gov. Lingle's desk, but Speaker Say said his body may not take up the bill if the House did not have enough votes to override. On the other hand, according to Equality Hawaii, Gov. Lingle never actually made a veto threat. It makes you wonder if legislators simply weren't willing to stick their necks out in an election year if it weren't absolutely certain the bill would become law. The Speaker made a motion to postpone the bill indefinitely. What makes it all the more surprising is that the House passed a civil unions bill last year by a margin of 33-17 that only applied to same-sex couples, while this bill actually extended benefits to heterosexual couples as well.
There is likely some backstory on why this happened. Very, very disappointing, to say the least.
Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has the story. David Bahati, the author of the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda, is coming to the Washington Hilton (a few blocks from my apartment, no less) for the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4th.
In February, David Bahati, the mover of the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Bill is expected to attend a prayer breakfast in the American capital of Washington DC.
Mr Bahati, according to reports, may speak at the event where President Barack Obama - a gays-tolerant liberal president, is also expected to attend. On Friday, Mr Bahati said he would attend. The event is organised by The Fellowship- a conservative Christian organisation, which has deep political connections and counts several high-ranking conservative politicians in its membership.
"I intend to attend the prayer breakfast," said Mr Bahati - himself a part organiser of the Ugandan equivalent of the national prayer breakfast. This week, citing international pressure, President Yoweri Museveni advised his party's National Executive Committee, his cabinet and the NRM parliamentary caucus to "go slow" on the Bill.
As Joe Sudbay writes, if Bahati attends, Obama and the rest of the Administration can't go. It's that simple. This is a test of whether the Administration learned anything from the Rick Warren episode at the Inauguration about giving a platform to right-wing causes like Bahati and The Fellowship, or whether it will be another case of this (which, funny enough, Matt Stoller posted upon news of Rick Warren):
Update: Warren Throckmorton reports that sources now say Bahati will not be attending, and that he was invited prior to introducing the "kill the gays" bill. Ambassador Richard Swett, who is identified as a spokesperson for the National Prayer Breakfast, confirms it in a brief statement. Like Jim Burroway says, since none of these organizations have a website to confirm this, we'll have to take their word for it and keep an eye on it.
