“Such protections are up to the legislative branch,” he said. His remarks:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

His implication was that outlawing discrimination by sex was only possible through legislature but that the constitution offered no innate protections against these abuses.

Kolawole further reports that “in 1996, Scalia was the only justice to dissent in the Supreme Court decision that ended the 157-year tradition of state-supported, all-male education at Virginia Military Institute.”

Scalia wrote:

…the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.

I guess women and gay citizens have also been smuggled into combat.

Amanda Terkel of HuffPo also covered Scalia’s inflammatory remarks, delving into opposing arguments of legal scholars on the issue. To be clear, this is the language of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Women are citizens are they not? Women are likewise considered “persons” are they not? Or have I missed something? The same holds true for the GLBT community.

For Scalia to make the above statements, he is offering that women or gay people for that matter, are not “persons” or “citizens.” Nothing in the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause speaks about persons or citizens being only male or straight – no matter when the law was written. For Scalia to pretend that judges do not have the right to interpret the Constitution to afford equal protection under the law, (i.e., to bar discrimination) to all people, regardless of sex, race, or sexual preference seems to me more than narrow minded and intentionally inflammatory.

Regardless of other areas in the Constitution where the word “male” was inserted, does Justice Scalia think that gives him the right to adhere to precepts that were written before women were given the right to vote? Or perhaps it is just that he would like it that way.

What say you?

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

You may have heard about a recent outbreak of trash-talking on Facebook between Willow Palin and a young man who allegedly went to school where the Palins do, Tre. Tre was talking smack about Willow’s mom after the premier of the TLC show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” (Palin’s show was the most watched premiere in TLC history, garnering 5 million viewers.) Willow took umbrage, and used a couple of homophobic slurs in her responses to him, calling him “gay,” and the f-word (the 6 letter one, that is). Apparently, Bristol weighed in, too, though did not use similar language.

Yikes.

Bristol regained her composure, though, and wrote this:

[snip] “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!”

Needless to say, this has raised a firestorm about Willow, and the Palins in general. The HRC has been one such organization to take aim at 16 year old Willow, though not everyone in the blogosphere is happy about that:

Some bloggers have said that as a minor, Willow should be off-limits. They also said the Palin cub was simply defending her “mama grizzly” in the inappropriate and misinformed style of a teenager.

“Willow Palin is a child, and she is not fair game,” Tommy Christopher wrote at Mediaite. “Willow and her Facebook playmates weren’t thinking about the rash of suicides related to anti-gay bullying, including young kids who were not, in fact, gay. They didn’t create a world where gay equals unequal, they are a product of it.” [snip]

Now you know I am not condoning anyone using that kind of language. Not even close. But, I do know that using those kinds of slurs are common with young people. That does not excuse it, but it is a reality, unfortunately. Heck, my own godson, who has TWO out lesbian godmothers, has been known to say things like, “that’s so gay.” He’s not the only one – other friends of mine have used that phrase to me, but claim it isn’t intended as an insult. Um, well, maybe not, but it is.

Anyway, that is all to say, Willow is 16. I said some pretty stupid stuff at 16, too, but I didn’t have it writ large on a national level. Again, not excusing it in any way, shape, or form, but I do see how it can happen. And how it is NOT a reflection on the parents themselves.

Two prominent gay and lesbian conservatives are furious with HRC and their attacks on Willow Palin. In this Daily Caller article, “Bigotry: The Selective Outrage Of The Gay Left,” Tammy Bruce and Christopher R. Barron go after HRC.

As an aside, you may recall that I was a long, long time member of the HRC – over 25 years – until they endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton. They had just presented Clinton with a huge award for her work on behalf of the LGBT community, and they endorse the man with the virulently homophobic associates – Meeks and McClurkin come to mind – instead. Wow.

Anyway, back to the article, and the response from these two GOProud members:

For days now, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which holds itself out as the “largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization,” has shamefully used the issue of anti-gay bullying as part of a cheap political smear against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. HRC, never shy about doing the bidding of the Democratic Party, issued a November 18th release blaring, “HRC to Sarah Palin: Two Days of Silence, Will You Speak Up?” Is this a release demanding Palin speak out about an issue of substance affecting gay people? No, this childish call-to-arms is about trash talk issued by a 16-year-old in a flame war on a social networking site.

The “controversy” surrounding inappropriate language used by the Palin daughters on Facebook shows again how selective the gay left is in expressing outrage over perceived “bigotry.”

Politicizing the serious issue of anti-gay bullying in order to score political points is morally reprehensible. Bristol apologized on behalf of herself and her younger sister — and that apology should be the end of the story, but it’s not because the real target of this faux outrage is Sarah Palin, a woman who represents an existential threat to both political machines.

No one is condoning the use of obscenities or derogatory terms, but no one who has seen the Facebook exchange in question can seriously claim this behavior had anything to do at all with “bullying.” It also has nothing to do with Willow Palin or the substance of what she wrote. Make no mistake; this is all about destroying Sarah Palin by friends of Obama and by any means necessary.

The irony here is stunning. The adults who run HRC are participating in a morally-reprehensible organized political hatchet job on a teenager all in the name of defending the victims of bigotry. [snip}

Can the case be made that the HRC is itself engaging in bullying against a child? And if so, it seems the motive is likely political:

[snip] The nature of the attacks on Palin reveals much about what motivates her critics. HRC’s press releases are ripe with misogynistic attacks on the Governor. HRC refers to the Governor as a “reality TV show star” — a transparent attempt to diminish Palin’s almost 20 years in politics. In a November 17th release, Joe Solmonese, the man at the helm of HRC, made a thinly veiled accusation that the Facebook exchange somehow showed Palin failed as a mother — “Anti-gay language by teenagers often starts at home…” [snip]

The authors discuss how that is not quite accurate – as I noted above, it is unfortunately far too common in our schools to use this kind of language. Sad, but true, even among those who should know better.

Bruce and Barron then target the Gay Left for their silence in regard to the homophobic, misogynistic tenets of radicalized Islam:

[snip] Last June, when President Obama delivered his much ballyhooed speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, he made no mention of the treatment of gays and lesbians living under Muslim regimes — even though in Egypt, the country where Mr. Obama spoke, gays have been subject to arrest and imprisonment for simply being gay. The reaction from the gay left? Nothing. No outrage, no harshly worded statements, and certainly no around-the-clock vigil waiting for an apology.

Last September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bravely took to the floor of the United Nations and criticized the treatment of gay people in Iran. After speaking with such moral clarity about the need to protect gay people from violence and death, if you expected praise from the gay left you would be wrong. Indeed, the powers that be at HRC pretended like Netanyahu’s speech never even happened.

The behavior of the gay left, and in particular HRC, is shameless and disgusting. Governor Palin certainly does not owe anyone associated with HRC an apology; indeed it is HRC who should apologize. They should apologize to Governor Palin for their vicious and unfounded smear, to the real victims of anti-gay bullying who they have cheaply exploited, and to gay people world-wide for the blind eye they have turned to the barbaric treatment of gays by radical Islamic regimes. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Interesting comparison, is it not? How is it that the Left now thinks its cool to support radical (not moderate) Islam that treats women as worse than chattel, and gays even worse than that, yet take on a teenager for some crap she wrote on Facebook. One could argue their priorities are a bit skewed.

Again, by no means do I condone the language used by Willow on Facebook. The level of bullying occurring in our schools is troubling, indeed, whether those children being bullied are gay or not. The outcome is the same.

Bristol Palin has apologized for her sister’s comments. They were out of line. But are her comments worthy of the ire of an entire organization, one that is going after a teenager? Is the HRC minimizing the very real, and troubling, number of suicides by gay teens by their demand? Are they targeting not Willow, but her mother? Will being told something is “so gay” ever be seen as POSITIVE? Perhaps that is for what we should be striving instead of being so upset when someone uses it in that kind of context (hey, I can hope, can’t I?)?

Maybe instead of the HRC focusing on some Facebook exchange between the daughter of a prominent Republican, they could push Obama to do more than give lip service to the LGBT community. Focus on repealing DADT. Focus on obtaining the same federal benefits for the LGBT community that the rest of the citizenry in this country enjoy. Push Obama to stop praising countries who treat their gay citizenry like criminals without mentioning same. You know, stuff like that.

And we need to do more sensitivity training in our schools – all of them. Our children need to know that this kind of name-calling is hurtful, regardless if the child is gay or not. It needs to stop. Adults need to stop using that kind of language, too (in a derogatory manner, that is). We need to teach our children that bullying is wrong no matter what. Period.

So, how about you. What do you think about this?

It isn’t just the Gay Folks who are getting a bit testy, as the video below indicates, but those of us Gay people who DID buy that Obama was going to do something for us (I don’t know what came over them) sure had something to say in the March on Oct. 10th (H/T to Logistics Monster for the video):

I came across this article by B. Daniel Blatt recently that addresses the frustrations of the GLBT community with Barack Obama, Gay Community Increasingly at Odds with Democrats. Considering the constant pandering, all talk, and no action, it is easy to see why we would be inreasingly discontented with Obama (those who were content with him in the first place, that is).

Mr. Blatt comes from a different political position than I do, and I appreciate his take here:

Perhaps the easiest thing about being a gay conservative is that we expect less from our elected leaders than do our left-of-center counterparts. Republican politicians don’t promise us the moon and stars in their campaigns, so we’re not disappointed when they don’t bestow such lofty gifts on our community once elected.

Huh. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Interesting. He continues:

For gay Democrats, however, it’s a different story. They are repeatedly disappointed when their politicians do not follow through on the campaign pledges they make to our community.

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but just a year later, he backpedaled on that promise. After he clumsily tried to act on that promise in the first few days of his administration, that Democrat realized he might suffer politically should he sign an executive order repealing the ban. At the time, the president’s signature was all that was required to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Facing a firestorm of opposition from the military and Congress, Clinton relented and signed a supposed compromise policy, the legislation which became known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Gays could now serve, provided they didn’t self-identify as gay. Now the ban on open service is codified, requiring an act of Congress to be repealed.

This would not be the last time Clinton would sign legislation upsetting gay people who so enthusiastically backed him in 1992.

In the dead of night on September 20, 1996, after receiving the endorsement of the left-leaning gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing one state to bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed in a different state while defining marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. Although its then-leaders denounced the action, HRC did not rescind its endorsement of the then-Democratic incumbent.

Now, you know, I love me my Bill Clinton. Not as much as his wife, mind you, but still…It’s a different day now than it was even then:

Perhaps with that bit of history in mind, the current Democratic President Barack Obama thought that by currying favor with this bastion of the gay Washington, D.C., establishment, he could silence the growing chorus of criticism from erstwhile gay supporters upset by his failure to act on his campaign promises to repeal those two bills. This past Saturday, the president addressed HRC’s annual dinner in Washington where he reiterated his campaign pledges:

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. … We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. … And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

As a reminder, I severed my long-standing membership with the HRC after it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, one a proven advocate for the GLBT community, and one who is not. Wanna guess which one is which? Yep – Hillary is, Obamais not. That doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the folks at the HRC dinner, but other people are getting it:

That may have earned him a standing ovation inside the auditorium, but it did not quiet the criticism outside. Indeed, if anything, the speech only served to increase its volume. Left-of-center lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding took umbrage at the president’s failure to offer a timeline for repeal:

The low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our president was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

Others found different reasons to call the speech “a fail.” Left-wing gay bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage said it sounded more like a campaign speech than a presidential address, with the latter offering, “Sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.” They were not alone. The New York Times reported that one reader of the Bilerico Project quipped in a comment to that gay blog, “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing.”

And you know how much I just LOVE Andrew Sullivan (that was major snark – he has attacked yours truly a number of times, tongue in cheek nominating me for the Michael Moore Award. I suppose I could do worse.). He was a major Obama sycophant, singing his praises left and right, downright bubbly in his support of The One. THat is al to say, I have little sympathy that he is now so disenchanted with Obama. Maybe he could have done a little more research – check that – maybe he could have done SOME research into Obama before throwing his weight behind him. Just a thought.

And he is not the only Obama supporter and GLBT community member who is now frustrated with Obama:

John Aravosis of Americablog was less restrained in his reaction to the speech:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. … It is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn’t do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen.

By this measure, the incumbent Democrat is a lot like the last Democrat to sit in the White House: both seek to avoid controversy, particularly on gay issues. And yet, in seeking to avoid controversy in the general population, Obama has further stirred the pot in the gay community. Even some of his most zealous defenders on the gay left have refused to cut him any slack for his failure to move forward on repealing DADT and DOMA.

Well, and they shouldn’t cut him any slack. Then again, IMHO, they should have pushed harder for a real advocate – Hillary – than the guy they thought was “cool,” or whatever the hell they were thinking – if indeed they were. Blatt continues:

And these outraged voices on the gay left have a greater opportunity today to make public their views than did their counterparts in the Clinton era. Many of them blog, some for heavily trafficked sites. These bloggers have prevented the voices of the establishment gay organizations from dominating the discourse (as they had in years past). When HRC’s president Joe Solmonese made excuses for the president’ s inaction, these bloggers were quick to take him to task.

Due in large part to the integrity of these gay left bloggers, a “schism,” as Spaulding puts it, has opened up between “Gay Inc. [and] the grassroots”. The blogosphere, in short, has changed everything. Gay Inc. (to use Spaulding’s epithet for the establishment gay organizations) no longer reigns supreme as the public voice of the gay community.

It has been supplemented by voices less submissive to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Blogs have given disgruntled Democrats a larger megaphone with which to express their disappointment with a party whose leaders have long assumed that gay voters would remain in their camp even if they didn’t act on their campaign promises.

And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.

Sure, Obama made a small move recently and nominated Clifford Stanley, a 33 year Marine two star general (retired), to this position:

President Barack Obama intends to nominate Dr. Clifford L. Stanley as the undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — the position within the Defense Department that oversees the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“He is likely to be the president’s key Pentagon player in the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate and will be critical for the president in getting military uniform buy-in,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Well, that’s just peachy keen. I don’t know how long it will take to get him confirmed, but it’s just another step. Honestly – HOW much longer are we going to have to debate this horrible legislation?? Did Obama not promise to abolish DADT shortly after he took office? He has a Super Majority, for pete’s sake, and at the very least, he could employ a stay on DADT, but no (as of Oct.17, 459 service members fired under DADT).

But this is a bigger picture issue than DADT, or even DOMA, for that matter. It’s how an entire segment of the population is treated disparately that is the issue.

Along those lines, I think a number of people have started to realize that Democrats do a lot of talking, very little listening, and even less fulfilling of campaign promises made, GLBT people included. Perhaps we can learn that one has to look at more than the letter beside the name, and really look at the candidate. For instance, John McCain stood up for a friend who came out, extending his support to him. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned with, and consistently surrounded himself with, homophobes (McClurkin, Meeks, and Kmiec, to name just three). That is to say, maybe, and I include myself in this, we need to look beyond the letters beside the names, and really look at the people, their character, their words, and how they match up with their actions. Maybe then, these people who gave of their money, and their VOTE, wouldn’t be so disappointed, and frustrated, now. Just a thought.

“Gays, Lesbians Rally Over Bar Raid in Fort Worth”

About 18 hours after officers with the Fort Worth Police Department and agents with the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission raided a Fort Worth gay bar, about 150 to 200 people gathered on the steps of the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth Sunday night, June 28, to protest the raid.

Sources have said that seven people were arrested in the raid although witnesses at the scene said many more people were handcuffed with zip ties and taken out of the bar.

One man, identified by his sister as Chad Gibson, was in the intensive care unit at Fort Worth’s JPS Hospital with bleeding in his brain after officers threw him to the ground and used zip-ties to handcuff him.

The raid happened on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion.

Well, that is some way to mark this inauspicious occasion, isn’t it?? To basically reenact it?? What in the world prompted this, is my question, and others, as well:

Joel Burns, Fort Worth’s first and only openly gay City Council member, was in Houston for the weekend, but came back to Fort Worth in time for the rally at the courthouse.

“We want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws of ordinances of our great state and city will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement,” Burns said at the rally, reading from a prepared statement.

“We consider this to be part of ‘The Fort Worth Way’ here. As elected representatives of the city of Fort Worth, we are calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the city of Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning,” Burns said.

In an e-mail communication before noon on Sunday, Burns said he had already talked with Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead who had promised an investigation into the matter. Burns also said at that time that Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Hicks, who represents the district where the Rainbow Lounge is located, and City Manager Dale A. Fisseler were also already aware of the situation.

Noting that the rainbow Lounge raid came on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Burns said at the rally, “Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all its citizens are protected.”

Well, yeah, maybe so, but AFTER the fact. How about the citizens being protected in the FIRST place instead of being beaten and handcuffed? Just asking. But Representative Burns is dealing on that:

Burns said he is working with Mayor Mike Moncrief, Halstead, the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and “our state legislative colleagues” to get “a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.”

Burns added, “Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And known that the GLBT community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

“Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and we are all working aggressively toward that end,” Burns said.

Lisa Thomas, Burns’ appointee to the city’s Human Relations Commission, also spoke at the rally, as did Todd Camp and Chuck Potter, two men who were at the bar when the raid happened and who were the primary organizers of Sunday’s two rallies.

Camp, referring to eyewitness accounts of the raid and to photographs that Potter took as the raid was occurring, said at the rally that “evidence demonstrates that the Fort Worth Police Department and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissioner over-reacted and used excessive, perhaps brutal force … .”

“The circumstances of the police action strongly suggest that elements of the law enforcement community selectively targeted a recently opened gay and lesbian establishment for selective enforcement and harassment.”

Ya think?? Evidently!! Even their statement is a bit fishy, if you ask me:

Fort Worth police have not returned calls seeking comment placed by Dallas Voice beginning at 10 a.m. Sunday morning. However, Fort Worth police released a statement to several mainstream media outlets saying that Rainbow Lounge was one of three bars targted by six Fort Worth police officers and two TABC agents and a supervisor.

The statement said that nine people were arrested at the first two bars — the Rosedale Saloon and Cowboy Palace, both on Rosedale Avenue — and that another seven people were arrested at Rainbow Lounge.

The statement also said that “an extremely intoxicated patron made sexually explicit movements toward the police supervisor” and that person was arrested for public intoxication.

A second “intoxicated individual” was arrested for public intoxication after making “sexually explicit movements towards another officer,” and a third person assaulted a TABC agent by grabbing his groin. That man was escorted outside and arrested for public intoxication, but was released to paramedics because of his “extreme intoxication” and the fact that he was vomiting repeatedly.

The statement said that while some officers were outside dealing with the vomiting suspect, another officer inside requested assistance in handling an intoxicated patron who was resisting arrest, and that this person was “placed on the ground to control and apprehend him.”

This person was apparently Chad Gibson, who was knocked unconscious and is now hospitalized with a brain injury.

Eyewitnesses to that incident said Gibson, who is “maybe 160 pounds soaking wet,” did not resist arrest but that he did stumble after the first officer grabbed his arm.

Rainbow Lounge owner J.R. Schrock said claims that patrons made sexual advances to the officers and that one patron groped an officer were lies.

“The groping of the police officer — really? We’re gay, but we’re not dumb,” Schrock said to the crowd that gathered at the bar Sunday afternoon. “That is a lie, and I am appalled by it.

“They treat us like outcasts. But even outcasts have a time to shine, and this is it,” Schrock said, pledging that he would not be “scared away” or intimidated into closing his bar. (E-mail nash@dallasvoice.com)

Okay, is it REALLY a surprise that people might be intoxicated AT A BAR??? I mean, I’m no rocket scientist, but that just doesn’t seem so far out of the realm of possibilities.

I reckon it’s a pretty easy defense for the excessive use of force the police used to say these guys “groped” them. Too many people would automatically accept that as more than enough reason to handcuff them, or throw them to the ground and cause a brain injury. An appeal to homophobia to justify one’s actions still works in this country. Sad to say, but true. Just look at the recent statement by Obama’s Justice Department on DOMA.

But I gotta say, the whole thing seems a bit suspect, so personally, I’m not buying what they’re selling. I am glad the GLBT community has a representative on their side in the Fort Worth area, but I have to say, it sure will be nice when the day comes that these kinds of things no longer happen at ALL. In the meantime, I am glad Mr. Shrock is keeping his bar open. More power to him. I hope this is the last of the police he will see in his bar, unless he calls them himself.

No, this latest attempt was more of the same kind of response Obama had when the GLBT community was up in arms over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give his Inauguration Prayer. After days and days of people complaining to the high heavens, he decided to have Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop, give the invocation at the Sunday Inaugural Concert event preceding the Inauguration. Except get this – he had HBO take Robinson OUT of the piece they aired on tv. I am not making this up. They couldn’t believe it, either. Eventually, it was agreed he would appear in later broadcasts, but not the one aired at the time.

So, after his backtrack on DADT, despite his campaign assurances; after his backstabbing on DOMA, in which it was made QUITE clear by Obama just who is worthy to be married (and it ain’t me); we get this half hearted attempt on his part to make it up to us. So, he will give SOME benefits to the partners of GLB employees except – wait for it – HEALTH CARE (and a H/T to alert NQ Reader, Mary, for this). You know, the big huge issue he’s going to be pushing on the All Barack Company propaganda channel “forum” coming up, the one he thinks should be for ALL people – except the partners of GLB Federal employees. As one friend (who’s heterosexual, by the way) said, it looks to her like all he’s willing to give in terms of Federal Benefits is moving expenses, to which she responded, “whoopee.”

Here’s a panel discussion on this very topic on Anderson Cooper 360 (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this):

C’mon, you gotta admit the absurdity of that is just laughable. Except that, once again, we are talking about real people and real lives, and one group still getting the short end of the stick.

Once, just ONCE, wouldn’t it be nice if Obama actually walked the walk without being FORCED to do something to cover his backside after he screwed up? To do the just act, the right act, the honorable act without all of the drama? Without trashing someone first, like in the DOMA brief? Or the brief to the Supreme Court over DADT? I’m just sayin’ – it would be nice if he were that kind of person. But he isn’t. And once again, we are talking about Obama’s lame attempts to placate us, to try and keep a voting bloc together. That may work for some (Kool-Aide drinking) people, but not for most of us.

All his false promises, and half hearted attempts, won’t change that.

Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

Oh, boy. Well, Obama recently showed his true colors on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (see this, this, and this) and he has REALLY shown them on “DOMA” (Defense of Marriage Act). I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but hey – it IS Pride month, after all, and what better time to stab a community in the back than the month you proclaim for them? At least that seems to be Obama’s Opposite World logic.

Before I go any further, let me just say, for the gazillionith time: I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. All of us who didn’t just blow off his anti-gay associates, those of us who saw his saying one thing and doing another, without making excuses (“well, yes, I am disappointed, but…” Those of us who paid attention to his close associates KNEW this was coming. Once again, for all of you groups who supported Obama, who just KNEW he was going to bring Hope! and Change! on his little Rainbow Unicorn Pony, thus throwing the rest of us to the curb, I freakin’ told you so.

John Aravosis, lays it all out in this article, “Obama Defends DOMA In Federal Court.” Here’s a little taste of it:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

Yep. Pretty much. But we already knew that, didn’t we? When the military will gladly take people, check that – heterosexual people – with criminal records over keeping West Point grads, I think the message is clear.

I am disgusted beyond belief. Not surprised, mind you, just disgusted. And angry.

There’s more, as this article highlights, “Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act.” Make sure you check out the powerful photo in this one:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed “we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” which says states are not required to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a “valid exercise of Congress’ power” that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state “shall be required” to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any “right or claim arising from such relationship.”

“Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” would be appropriate here, IF we weren’t talking about people’s LIVES. And that’s what makes this so egregious. Still disgusted beyond belief, but this time, not only with Obama, but these groups who jumped on his little American Idol bandwagon, lapping up his Teleprompter “Words, just words.” And that’s JUST what they were – words. The actions are telling the tale, and it ain’t good.

And in a related case, the DOJ weighs in on a related case, “DOJ Moves To Dismiss First Fed Gay Marriage Case“:

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on “whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

Oh, yes – he is SUCH a friend to the LGBT community – in Opposite World, that is. And this kind of backtracking, bamboozling, bullshit from Obama is precisely why I told the HRC guy who called me the other day to get me to reinstate my membership that there was no way in hell I would do that after the HRC supported Obama, and not HRC (you know, as in Hillary). He kept telling me that Obama SAID he was going to this, and Obama SAID he was going to do that. I told him Obama could say whatever he WANTED, but the fact remained he had done NOTHING yet, and his history led me to believe he wouldn’t. I just didn’t realize that in one week – within a couple of days of each other – that Obama would prove me right. And not just that he wasn’t going to do anything, but he did WORSE than that, screwing us six ways to Sunday. What I told this man at HRC as I got off the phone was, “Obama is no friend to the GLBT community.” Talk about an understatement.

Once again, I say that anyone who thought for one skinny second that Obama was going to do anything at all positive for the GLBT community was deluding themselves so they could vote for the one everyone said was the cool kid, the popular guy, the one whose razor thin resume would have been laughed at except for his marketing team who billed no experience, and no qualifications, as the Change We NEED!! Well, this is change alright, but I sure as hell don’t need it, and frankly, I resent all of those people who mindlessly voted for this man, who attacked all of us who didn’t buy his hooey from the get-go, all those people who called (and still call) us racists, and on and on and on because we didn’t swallow the Kool Aide.

So, during this Pride Month, let me just say, thanks shitloads for giving us this guy who is taking us back, no, legislating us back into the closet (a little poetic license – you know what I mean). Yep – thanks a whole lot for a whole lot of grief.

Now – what are you gonna DO about it???

As some of you know, my mother suffered a stroke recently. I am currently in my home town spending time with her and getting her house in order. As a result, I rushed a recent post on “DADT” I wrote in order to get to the nursing center in a timely fashion. Alert No Quarter reader, Ed, gently (I am not being snarky here – he really was) pointed out to me that the soldier whose actual case went before the Supreme Court was not at ALL amused at Obama’s lack of support, though the rest of my post stands as is, I think. The point is, he is dong nothing, and too many people are allowing him to WORM (What Obama Really Meant) out.

The soldier whose case was thrown out by the SCOTUS, had something to say about it, alright, and it was not a whole bunch of WORMing, as this article makes clear,

Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout. Check this out:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” (emphasis mine) upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.

I don’t want to overreach or anything, but it does sound like Pietrangelo is a tad hot under the collar, as he SHOULD be. About damn time the MSM bothered to report that not everyone is in love with Obama.

As for “DADT” and Obama’s lack of action:

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.

The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.

“EVENTUALLY”??? Just how the hell long is THAT?? I’m not buying what he’s selling, and neither is Pietrangelo:

Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

But the trouble is that the law was passed by Congress and, if Obama decided to go around the legislature, he would face political blowback. The current law allows gays to serve, so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. The legislation means that a majority of the 535 members of Congress is going to have to vote to undo the ban — and that will have its political fallout. Obama is plainly taking his cue from the 1993 fiasco, which hurt Clinton’s relationship with conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and with many in uniform.

But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”

Here’s what gripes me about this, and the other service members who have been kicked out of the military for being LGBT, including Arabic linguists, whom we could actually use right now: the military has actually lowered its enlistment standards over the past few years because of the two wars we are fighting. I am not kidding. Click HERE to read more about it. Doesn’t that just gripe you, too?

Uh, yeah, so enough with the excuses already about “DADT.” Like I said, if Obama has the time to do a videotaped message for Stephen Colbert, giving a “lawful order,” he sure can pick up the phone to call Pelosi and Reid, and tell them to push this through. Dadgummit!

And here’s another good one, courtesy of faithful reader, SF Indie, who informed me of THIS new pick by Obama,
Head Of Pro-Life* Group Gets Job At HHS (* I take issue with the term “Pro-Life, and prefer “Anti-Choice.”). Well I’ll be darned – he’s throwing NARAL, NOW, and a whole bunch of other women and women’s groups under the bus, too???? Oh, I am so, so, so surprised!!! Not, not, not:

The Obama administration has picked the former head of a pro-life Catholic organization to run faith-based and community outreach programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexia Kelley, co-founder of the liberal group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Thursday to run HHS’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (The administration wouldn’t immediately confirm that, but the Catholic Reporter published a press release from Catholics in Alliance trumpeting the announcement.) Catholics in Alliance’s main goal since Kelley helped found it in 2005 has been to emphasize the Catholic Church’s social justice teachings in the political sphere; like other progressive religious groups, it lines up with Democratic positions on health care, poverty, labor and other issues.

On abortion, the group has mostly worked to find ways to reduce demand, rather than to push laws aimed at curtailing the availability of the procedure. But its Web site makes clear that it isn’t pro-choice. “Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life — from conception until natural death,” says a frequently asked questions page.

Pro-choice activists weren’t happy: HHS oversees health care, including abortion policy, for much of the federal government. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, called it “a defeat for reason and logic.” “The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that,” he told Salon. But “to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion… really beggars belief.” The timing of the appointment — just days after abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in his Wichita, Kan., church — is likely to aggravate pro-choice groups even more. (Anti-choice organizations, though, have criticized Catholics in Alliance for giving cover to pro-choice Democrats, by attempting to shift the debate from banning abortion to simply reducing it.)

Well, golly gee – they aren’t happy with the man they chose to support over the WOMAN who has shown her resolve on this issue time and time again?? As Kathy Griffin would say, they can suck it. Again, had they BOTHERED to look at his record (or lack thereof) or his experience (or lack thereof) rather than jumping on the popularity bandwagon, they wouldn’t be so unhappy now. They brought it on themselves BY themselves.

Oh, and you’ll like this part:

Aides at the White House and HHS didn’t immediately return calls and e-mails for comment.

ROTFMLAO – really? They White House and HHS didn’t want to talk about this?? Yeah, I bet.

One last piece:

Update: A spokeswoman for Catholics in Alliance, Jennifer Goff, just sent over a statement. The group clearly wasn’t happy with the criticism from Catholics for Choice: “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward reaching common ground in order to make real progress on the moral and political challenges our country faces instead of resorting to spurious attacks launched by those who are more concerned with inflaming the culture wars than effecting positive change.”

Okey dokey. Sure. Whatever they say…

By now, I am certain everyone has heard of the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. It was a tragedy indeed, and my heart goes out to the security guard’s family, as well to those who were present at the time. But. And you knew it was coming. When President Obama comes out with a statement tout suite on the security guard’s death, and even Fox News talking about honoring this guard’s service, it makes me a bit irritated. And if you have been reading my posts of late, you know why: because Obama waited DAYS to say anything about the soldiers being gunned down in the street outside a recruiting center, men who were not just doing a job, but giving their LIVES in service to this country (and I meant that in the big picture sense – when you are in the military, it ISN’T just a job. It is your LIFE.). Bottom line is this: Private Long deserved at least as much attention as the security guard did, not to in any way, shape, or form diminish the tragic, senseless loss of life at a museum dedicated to memorializing one of the most horrific periods in world history (and it is an amazing, amazing place).

I’m just saying enough WORMing on Obama’s lack of support to our military, for those lost through an unequal law, or through a politically, religiously motivated attack on service members on our own soil. And, enough WORMing on the poor choices Obama continues to make. Enough already.

Again, big thanks to Ed and SFIndie…

Valerie Larabee, a ten-year veteran of the Air Force who retired in 1995 is proud of her service and now runs the Utah Pride Center. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear arguments in a case challenging the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (Francisco Kjolseth/The Salt Lake Tribune)

In her final year in the military, Air Force mortuary officer Valerie Larabee was called upon to care for four families grieving the suicides of fellow airmen.

“It really impacted me emotionally, but I couldn’t even go to the base chaplain to talk about it, because I was just so fearful,” she said. “I knew that he would ask, ‘Who else do you have in your life that can help comfort you?’ And I knew I couldn’t tell him.”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments Monday in a case challenging the constitutionality of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military.

Gay-rights activists, including Larabee, the director of the Utah Pride Center, decried the court’s decision, which let stand a lower court ruling in favor of the ban. They said it would permit the military to continue to treat tens of thousands of gay and lesbian service members as second-class citizens.

“I am really hopeful about how things are going in our country right now and I feel like we have some tremendous opportunities,” Larabee said. “But this is disappointing.”

She’s hopeful? Why? Does she know something we don’t? Ahem. I assume she means because of Obama, though honestly – I just continue to be boggled by this – he has done NOTHING for our community, and CONTINUES to do nothing, and people STILL think he will?? Oh, but wait – there are REASONS why we’re at the back of the bus:

Noting the ongoing wars and the nation’s floundering economy, Larabee said she understands there are other pressing matters for Congress, the White House and the nation’s highest court to consider.

“But do I think our issues are every bit as important as those? Yes, I absolutely do,” she said, adding that she wished the court would have taken up the case.

But ya know what? If our President and Congress can decide to take over our banks and our private companies in such a short amount of time, something that was NOT on the (SPOKEN) Obama agenda, why the hell haven’t they gotten to this?? I mean, really – they have a MAJORITY – they should be able to take care of this in one day, right? That is, if they really intend to do anything about it. Here, I’ll even write it for them: “Because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” treats US Citizens in an unequal manner under the law; because we are losing tremendous assets as a result of this flawed law; because being homosexual does not in anyway impede one’s ability to serve one’s country as numerous allies have well demonstrated; we hereby repeal this biased law, and will reinstate ALL military personnel dismissed under this law who wish to return to service immediately.” There ya go. I’m giving you that for free. No charge. Take it.

Ahem. Then, maybe we could get back people like Lt. Choi, and Larabee:

Larabee spent 10 years in an Air Force uniform before resigning her commission in 1995 — two years after the Clinton-era law, which was thought of by many as a step forward for gay rights — went into effect. She said that she would have liked to have continued serving her country, but she couldn’t keep living a lie.

“I would still be in the military today if I didn’t have to lie about who I am,” she said. “My military service is the thing that I’m most proud of in my life.”

Having to keep secrets from those who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in arms “ends up causing a lot of anxiety,” she said. “It’s shameful that we should have to do that.”

Uh, yeah – that’s putting it mildly. Once again, people seem to be lieve the rhetoric instead of the reality:

But gay service members might not have to keep up the pretense for long. Author Nathaniel Frank said he figures the policy might last another two years, given the country’s need for service members at a time of war and a national sentiment he believes is moving in the direction of gay rights.

In his book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America , Frank writes that gay service members have been forced out of service since the Revolutionary War. The first recorded case was in 1778, when Lt. Gotthold Enslin was kicked out of the Army in a ceremony in which an officer’s sword was broken over his head after he was caught in bed with another soldier.

Set against 230 years of military history, Frank said, Monday’s ruling is a blip on the radar.

“I wouldn’t think too much of this,” he said. “The court has a tradition of deferring to military and congressional judgment.”

He believes that President Barack Obama, though slow out of the gate on ending the ban as promised during his campaign, “still wants and needs this — and it should be played out not in the courts, but at the White House and in Congress.”

I mean, really – if Obama can take the time to give a command for Stephen Colbert’s hair to be cut, you don’t think he can place a phone call to Pelosi and Reid and tell them to get this done NOW? Please. Okay. Just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but bear in mind that this “belief” affects a lot of people.

Still, there is some light on this – not coming from Obama, of course:

There appears to be some movement on the issue in Congress, where California Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher has convinced 150 of her House colleagues to co-sponsor a bill that would end the ban. The Obama Administration, meanwhile, has made no specific move toward ending it and has declined to step in to stop the dismissal of gay service members, such as West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran Lt. Dan Choi. He is being processed for discharge from the Army after publicly disclosing that he is gay.

In an open letter to the president, the New York National Guard member took issue with the idea that his sexuality was a detriment to good order and discipline in his unit.

Much to the contrary, he wrote, “I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.”

More than 230 service members (emphasis mine) have been kicked out of the military under the policy since Obama took office, according to the Service Members Legal Defense Fund.

We have only heard about the very tip of the iceberg, as I have said before. We have only heard about people like Lt. Choi who decided to “make a federal case” out of it. TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY service members have already been kicked out. But people like Larabee use the excuse of us being in two wars as a rational for why Obama has not done anything about this yet? That is opposite world thinking, in my opinion – it is PRECISELY because we are in two wars now that we NEED to keep all of the people who are willing to fight for this country, not lose them over some ill-founded, homophobic, backwards, illogical, hateful law. We could USE an Arabic linguist like Lt. Choi at a time like this, don’t you think?

Repeal the law – it cannot POSSIBLY take that long. Like I said, look how fast Obama got some other things done he wanted done. If he wanted this law repealed already, he would have. Rather, Obama chose to not even weigh in on this to the Supreme Court. LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the rhetoric!

Here’s the bottom line to the LGBT community: STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY. Stop humiliating yourselves hoping, crossing your fingers, and wishing that Obama is going to do right by you because he said he would, or because you think he’s “dreamy.” Had you opened your eyes and paid attention to his actions (or lack thereof) over the course of his political career, or the people with whom he chooses to surround himself, you wouldn’t have picked the guy you thought was “cool.” You would have supported the person who has stood with YOU for years. But you didn’t. And here we are, no farther along for it.

Aren’t you TIRED of begging for the crumbs to drop from the table?? Aren’t you ready to be a guest at the table, where you belong?? All the excuses in the world for Obama do nothing but let him off the hook, and diminish YOU. Seriously, you, we, deserve better. Deep down inside, you must know that is true. At least I HOPE you do…

According to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

Cheney was asked at the National Press Club, “given recent events in Iowa and elsewhere, is some form of legalized gay marriage inevitable for the United States?”

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said.

“People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish,” said the laconic former veep, whose daughter Mary is lesbian, and has a son, Sam, with her partner Heather Poe.

Cheney said “…The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.”

I know that VP Cheney has a lesbian daughter and all, but let me put it to you this way, if the world’s most reactionary VP, a/k/a my name is Dick “just call me Mr. Neo Con” Cheney can make a statement as progressive as that – for him – what the hell excuse does our most progressive President evah have for not coming out in favor of gay marriage, or at the very least, at long last repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” – since he has an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and with his popularity, he clearly has the political capital to do it.

Unintentionally perhaps (tee hee), President Obama is receiving a not so gentle nudge from another quarter. Last month, our SHE-ro, Secretary of State Clinton vowed to confer “equal benefits to partners of homosexual US diplomats stationed overseas” (H/T to RRR Amy for her excellent story) and Clinton now takes this a step further:

Clinton vows to fight for gay rights abroad:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed Monday to fight for gay rights, calling for all nations to stop violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Clinton made the appeal ahead of the 40th anniversary this month of New York’s Stonewall Riots, often seen as the launch of the US gay rights movement, in which gays and lesbians fought back against police who raided their bars.

“The example set by those fighting for equal rights in the United States gives hope to men and women around the world who yearn for a better future for themselves and their loved ones,” said Clinton, a former senator from New York.

While acknowledging that gays and lesbians still had a long path to equality in the United States, Clinton deplored that gays in some parts of the world live in constant fear of arrest or violence.

“The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end,” she said.

“As secretary of state, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Under President Barack Obama, the United States has switched gears from the previous George W. Bush administration by supporting a United Nations resolution calling for the global decriminalization of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is punishable by death in seven countries — Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Clinton in her statement saluted the service of “our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in Washington and around the world.”

And what is the President doing? Tapper of ABC News reports POTUS Honors LGBT Pride Month by Not Supporting Same Sex Marriage, While Cheney Disagrees. Ouch!

Saying he’s “proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration,” President Obama issued a presidential proclamation Monday in honor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

To LGBT activists, however, some of the omissions on his proclamation likely spoke louder than the words included.

Then, Tapper offers an UPDATE at the bottom of his post:

It turns out that Mr. Obama’s claim “to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration” isn’t accurate, since by April 1993 President Bill Clinton had nominated two openly gay Assistant Secretaries.

Double ouch! Always trying to omit Bill from the equation, isn’t he? And never mind the fact that Hillary Clinton has marched in every Gay Pride parade imaginable and has spoken out for Gay rights many times.

Mentioning his administration’s international efforts to decriminalize homosexuality, the President said he would continue to “support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans” — enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gays and lesbians in the armed services.
…
That equal justice under law did not include, in the president’s recitation, perhaps the highest profile issue on the gay-dar – same sex marriage, or what LGBT activists call “marriage equality.”

Interestingly, the presidential proclamation came the same day that Mr. Obama’s conservative nemesis, former Vice President Dick Cheney, seemed to say he supported same-sex marriage as long as the rules are determined on a state-by-state basis.

I am still agape at this: Dick Cheney trumping Obama on the gay marriage issue. I mean Hillary always trumped Obama on gay rights, women’s rights, too, of course, but Cheney? Certainly, it is easy for Mr. Cheney to talk now that he’s no longer in office and can do nothing to affect policy, but he clearly enjoys this limelight and as well, being a thorn in the President’s side. And good for Jake Tapper for making sure to point out the following in his article:

President Obama today also made no mention of when or how the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would end, though he said it would be done “in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.

“As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected,” the president said. “If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit.”

But Mr. President – you are the one leaving that promise unfulfilled. What about Dan Choi? You said you wished you could do more about his situation. Sir, you are the POTUS! And what does repealing DADT have to do with our national security? But I gotta love my girl Hill for her statements, which bear repeating:

“The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end,” she said.

“As secretary of state, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

While the article quoting Secretary Clinton makes mention of the fact that this is Obama reversing Bush’s old policies, since this man has never actually participated in any Gay pride event prior to this, and gave his voters very mixed messages on Prop 8 in California, he is again making a show without the substance to back it up. Further, Bret Baier of FOX News discussed Cheney’s statements with his panel yesterday and they all felt Obama would shortly be coming under great pressure to act.

Come on, Mr. President. We’re waiting.

We’re becoming a Puritanical society, bit by bit. No same sex marriage, no domestic partnership benefits, no rights for any couple unless they’re married under the eyes of the law. What’s next? No divorce allowed? We have to protect marriage, after all. Governmental approval of choice of spouse before marriage can take place? I wonder what their criteria would be.

Here in SF, the gay community is despondent, and rightly so. (But now I’m going to rant a bit, because I’m so freaking tired of the blindness and apathy and non-accountability and hypocrisy I run into daily.)

The folks I talk to here in the Castro are very nastily taking their frustrations out on Carrie Prejean who, while I certainly don’t agree with her views, has the exact same views as the man they voted for President. Yet when I mention this, I get no response, or “that’s different”.

Mention The Pretender’s turnaround with DADT and DOMA? No response. Mention some of the anti-gay people he’s appointed to positions in his administration? No response. Mention his non-support of equal marriage rights for everyone, his non-support of the gay community, his never once having marched in any gay pride parade? No response.

But mention Carrie Prejean? Well, you’d think she was the devil incarnate. Like I said, I certainly don’t agree with her views, but would someone please tell me why she’s bad and The Pretender is still The One???

I agree we ALL have to fight for marriage equality, gay and straight alike. I wish someone would tell the gay community here in SF. I’m seeing a lot of anger at the outcome of the CSC decision, but where were they all when Prop 8 was on the ballot? The level of involvement was almost zero. Easier to blame its passing on others rather than take responsibility for educating and enlightening those people outside of their community.

Okay, time for me to go hide again and pretend I’m in the midst of a nightmare and I’ll be waking up any minute and turn on the news and find out what President Hillary Clinton is accomplishing today.

What SFIndie said. Couldn’t have said it better myself…Thanks, SFIndie, for letting me post this!

Wow. So Ellen and Portia are still A-okay, it seems, along with 18,000 other people. And how about the rest of the people there?

This is disconcerting, to be sure, though not unexpected, I have to say. I wish it was different, but it isn’t.

What I do find incredibly curious is that NO ONE talks about Amendment 2 in Florida, which is equally as bad, if not worse. Why is that? It passed during the 2008 election, too, yet it is completely ignored. This was the concern in FL (and note the state that also has a ban mentioned in the following):

But opponents say the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment isn’t a gay issue, but rather a measure that could negatively affect many heterosexual couples as well.

They point to particular wording in the amendment that they say could lead to unmarried couples — gay and straight — losing hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, and domestic partner health benefits provided by employers.

The proof, they say, is what has happened in other states where similar amendments have passed.

Since Michigan voters approved a ”marriage protection” amendment in 2004, the state Supreme Court has struck down domestic partner benefits, including health insurance and pensions. A battle is also under way in Kentucky to eliminate domestic partner benefits for employees of state universities because of similar legislation.

”This amendment says that because marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else counts,” said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue, the bipartisan organization running the SayNo2 campaign to defeat the amendment. “It could take away existing rights and benefits of Floridians.”

Wow – Michigan, too. And Virgina. South Carolina. A total of forty-one (41) states have defined marriage between a man and a woman.

I know we are supposed to be all excited that a whopping FIVE states consider LGBT people to be equal, but it seems with every step forward, there’s at least one step back. I guess all we can do is keep fighting for equal rights for all people. One day at a time, I reckon…

California!. What a state! We are known for our whacky politics and all-around open-minded, fun-loving, Hollywood-inspired ways. Calling us “yogurt-loving, latte drinking, text-messaging, vegetarian neurotics” is taken as a compliment. If you have a pulse, you are a friend and deserve a big hug.

So you would think that we would welcome giving people who love and are committed to each other their due civil rights.

Well, we did, and then it got taken away by the proponents of Proposition 8. These sour people ran a slick, homophobic, and highly misleading ad-campaign that would have even made David Axelrod blush. They scared enough voters—those who don’t bother to look beyond the hype to learn the facts—into backtracking.

Now comes the critical test. Was Proposition 8 constitutional? May 26th is D (for DECISION) Day. The California Supreme Court will either negate it, recognizing equal protection under the law for all, or maintain discrimination and the taking away of fundamental civil rights from a minority.

So many friends’ lives are affected by this vote. One friend, who did get married during the window when gay marriage was legal here, has been with her now-wife for 30 years. That’s more than most heterosexual marriages last. And that is just one example of many who have experienced a lot of pain along the way and now pray that their marriages will hold up. Other couples are waiting for the word that they, too, can marry the person they love.

So let’s see what happens. In the meantime Iowa, of all places (among others), got it right. How embarrassing to us Californians who thought we were on the forefront of every right idea.

Maybe it is because we have been having people like Lt. Dan Choi speaking out, asking President Obama not to fire him under the policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” recently. Likewise for Lt. Col.Victor Ferenbach, and Major Witt, all calling for a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, so these highly trained, highly decorated people can continue the work they do best on our behalf (I have written about these folks just recently, and SusanUnPC posted an incredible video of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach. They want to continue to serve their country even though their country is treating them like second class citizens.

Except in the State Department. Yes, that Hillary Clinton has made a move that should warm the hearts of everyone who cares about equality and social justice. Check out this article, Gay US Diplomats To Get Equal Benefits:

SECRETARY of State Hillary Clinton has promised to provide equal benefits to partners of homosexual US diplomats stationed overseas, a congressman said.

Howard Berman, head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had sought to require the State Department to offer benefits such as medical care, transport between postings and security training to partners regardless of sexual orientation.

Mr Berman, in a hearing on funding for the Foreign Service, said he would drop his legislative bid as “it is my expectation, based on very recent conversations, that the Secretary of State will move forward with implementing all of the benefits provided in that provision in the very near future”.

The congressman invited to the hearing Michael Guest, the former US ambassador to Romania who in 2007 left the Foreign Service, citing unfair treatment of his partner.

“For 26 years he served our country with distinction and was sadly forced to leave the Foreign Service when he could no longer accept the second-class status accorded his lifetime partner,” said Mr Berman, a Democrat from California.

“But I am heartened that soon no more of our best and brightest will be forced to choose between family and country,” he said.

The ranking Republican member on the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, has supported the effort.

Ms Ros-Lehtinen signed a letter to Mrs Clinton sent in February by Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin who is openly lesbian, warning the State Department risked losing qualified diplomats unless it provided equality to gay partners.

But another Republican lawmaker criticized a separate part of the bill aimed at promoting gay rights.

The funding bill calls on US diplomats to encourage other countries to revise laws that restrict consensual homosexual relations or limit the freedoms of gay people and groups.

Wow. That is HUGE. Really huge. And that pretty much says it all about the difference between Clinton, and Obama. One walks the walk, and one talks and talks.

You may recall that she said on the Ellen Degeneres Show that if elected president (and she would have been had she not been thrown overboard by the DNC), she would grant federal benefits to GLBT people. Here’s the video, just in case you want a refresher (and want to see Hillary again – don’t you miss her? I do…):

As a bonus, watch the second part – Secretary Clinton is hilarious!

Since Hillary wasn’t able to provide rights for all LGBT US citizens, she is doing it for the ones she can in the Diplomatic Corp. Good on her, and good for them. It is a start. And a glimpse of what we all could have had…