Pentagon to announce 'year long' review of DADT, including whether DOD will be forced to recognize gay marriage

I'm sorry. I recently wrote that Barack Obama was not our president, but in fact Secretary Gates was president. In fact, I was wrong. It now appears that Phyllis Schafly is in charge of the Pentagon, and our entire government. Otherwise, why is the Pentagon putting out talking points about whether lifting the ban will force them to recognize gay marriages? Can they make this issue more incendiary? First segregated showers, now gay marriage.

Gotta hand it to them, when DOD decides to screw over their commander in chief and a key constituency of the Democratic party, they do it with gusto.

A series of telling stories out tonight, all of them bad. It appears that Secretary Gates is going to announce a special team of advisers at tomorrow's DADT hearings in the Senate, and that team will take a good year or so to think over all the really hard issues confronting us with the potential repeal of DADT, such as gay marriage.

Their review is expected to look at several sensitive issues, including whether the military should extend marriage and bereavement benefits to the partners of gay soldiers, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

There is no gay marriage at the federal level, and DOMA forbids the federal government from providing marriage benefits. So why is DOD even bringing up gay marriage - and they do in this second story too, so this is clearly part of their prepared talking points - unless they're simply trying to be sensationalistic.

Oh, and in the meantime, they're going to implement the discriminatory policy in a more humane manner.

Funny, but I don't recall that being Barack Obama's promise to my community. To more humanely discriminate us against us. He promised to lift the ban. He promised to get ENDA passed. He promised to repeal DOMA. And none of those are currently being discussed. What is being discussed is another study to add to the pile of studies we already have. What is being discussed is a proposal to "change" DADT, rather than repeal it - just as Joe and I have been predicting.

I heard the other day that a prominent political analyst is going around town talking about his expectation that the Republicans will take back the House in the fall. If that happens, you can kiss the repeal of DADT, DOMA, and the passage of ENDA goodbye for years to come. President Obama promised us. He promised us again in the State of the Union. And now he has apparently signed off on the Pentagon coming to the Hill and presenting us with a stall tactic, while they promise to discriminate against us slightly less in the coming years.

Another delay tactic - the chief of staff of the Army says maybe we shouldn't lift the ban until we finish withdrawing from Iraq:

A senior military official said that Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, believes the ban shouldn't be lifted until the U.S. completes its withdrawal from Iraq.

The Pentagon is running circles around the White House. Or we're simply being played by the White House. Or both.

There is no reason the White House can't work with the Congress to repeal the ban this year, and simply delay implementation of the repeal until next year when the "study" is done. But if the White House doesn't get Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed this year, then gay and lesbian Democrats, and our allies, need to make the White House, the DNC, and OFA pay a steep price for this betrayal. And any of our gay rights groups who condone and enable this betrayal, should be held just as accountable.

PS And notice how nowhere in the articles is anyone from the administration talking any longer about putting DADT repeal in the DOD authorization bill this year. Poof, it's gone. Read the rest of this post...

Orszag told me DADT savings were so small that they wouldn't be included in the budget. Then why were even smaller savings included?

I wrote a few hours ago about how I asked OMB Director Orszag earlier today why the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't in the President's budget. Orszag told me that the expected annual savings I cited, from $30m to $60m a year, were really quite tiny in the grand scheme of the Pentagon's budget. To be precise, Orszag told me that those figures were "so small" as to be akin to a "rounding error" in the Pentagon budget. So we shouldn't expect something so small to be in the Pentagon's budget, and thus we shouldn't take any meaning from the fact that DADT repeal isn't there.

Then AMERICAblog reader Rich came along. Look what Rich found on the White House Web site - a document bragging about savings in the President's budget. And a lot of those savings are under $30 to $60m. Let me share with you some of the Pentagon savings in that document:

* $12m EP-X Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Aircraft, Department of Defense
* $46m Navy CG(X) Cruiser, Department of Defense
* $9m Net Enabled Command Capability (NECC), Department of Defense
* $2m Air Force - Cellular Airtime Optimization
* $15.3m Army - Streamlining the Army’s Unemployment Compensation Process

They're bragging about saving $2m dollars. In fact, they even devoted an entire page of the document to explain in detail the $2m savings. But $30m to $60m is a pittance that isn't worth mentioning in that same document.

Looks like DADT repeal wasn't mentioned for other reasons - not because its savings were too small to be important. So what's the real reason the administration is refusing to start the ball rolling on the President's promise to the gay community? Read the rest of this post...

OMB claimed DADT didn't have a budgetary impact

Wrong. Read the rest of this post...

Budget director Orszag: DADT repeal not in the budget because it's so small, it amounts to 'a rounding error'

UPDATE: Things even smaller, in terms of their budgetary impact, made it into the DOD budget, so why didn't DADT repeal?

Moments ago, I got to ask OMB Director Peter Orszag why the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't in the President's budget, submitted to Congress today. DADT has a clear budgetary impact - it's estimated to have cost between $500m and $1bn since it was implemented in 1993 - and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has called on the administration to included DADT repeal in their budget.

Orszag responded that we should ask DOD, and that the amount of money spent on enforcing DADT on an annual basis, $30m to $60m, is "so small" it amounts to "a rounding error," and that's why it might not show up in budget documents.

Well, a few problems with that. First off, we shouldn't have to ask the Department of Defense why the President's expressed policy of repealing DADT is not in their budget submission to Congress. Of course, given their druthers, DOD wouldn't put the repeal in their budget ever. They've been trying to undercut the President's promise from day one. The question is why the President didn't overrule the people who work for him over at the Pentagon and included the repeal in the budget.

As for DADT being a "rounding error," if it were so insignificant a policy, the President would just do it, and the Defense Department wouldn't be bordering on rank insubordination in their ongoing efforts to stop it.

A short history of the Defense Department's insubordination on this issue - this is just from the last few months:

Senior Pentagon Officials: Repeal of DADT 'not imminent'
Why did the Joint Chiefs diss DADT repeal last night?
Pentagon considering whether gay troops need to be segregated 'separate but equal' style; secret gay meeting confirms 'there is no plan' on DADT
Chmn of Jt Chiefs' office leaks memo to undercut Prez on DADT: 'Now is not the time' Read the rest of this post...

Protesters get one up on Fred Phelps

The Laughing Squid reports that the Phelps clan was protesting Twitter, and then planning to protest the local production of Fiddler on the Roof (seriously). So a group of locals decided to counter-protest Phelps in a rather unique way. There are more signs via the link.

(And tell me again why this isn't child abuse?)

Read the rest of this post...

Donna Rose on Amanda Simpson and Dylan Orr

I went to see author and transgender activist, Donna Rose, speak at the Dennis R. Neill Equality Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

I have to hand it to Tulsa. For a city our size, and located in the buckle of the Bible Belt, we are lucky to have the Oklahoma Equality organization and their willingness to host people like Donna Rose. One of the questions I asked her was if she agreed with Autumn Sandeen's take at Pam's House Blend on the difference in media treatment between Amanda Simpson, the first trans woman's appointment in Obama's Admin, and that of Dylan Orr, a transgender man. Part of that night's agenda was to celebrate Amanda's appointment and, as luck would have it, my mind vapor locked and I couldn't remember Dylan's last name. Fortunately, someone seated behind me backed me up on the fact Dylan had indeed been the first appointed.

Donna Rose agreed with Autumn's article:

...Indeed, the media tends not to notice--or to outright ignore--trans men because they are unable to sensationalize them the way they do trans women without bringing masculinity itself into question. And in a world where modern psychology was founded upon the teaching that all young girls suffer from penis envy, most people think striving for masculinity seems like a perfectly reasonable goal. Author and sex educator Pat Califia, who is himself a trans man, addresses this in his 1997 book Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism: "It seems the world is still more titillated by 'a man who wants to become a woman' than it is by 'a woman who wants to become a man.' The first is scandalous, the latter is taken for granted. This reflects the very different levels of privilege men and women have in our society. Of course women want to be men, the general attitude seems to be, and of course they can't. And that's that."

Once we recognize how media coverage of transsexuals is informed by the different values our society assigns to femaleness and maleness, it becomes obvious that virtually all attempts to sensationalize and deride trans women are built on a foundation of unspoken misogyny. Since most people cannot fathom why someone would give up male privilege and power in order to become a relatively disempowered female, they assume that trans women transition primarily as a way of obtaining the one type of power that women are perceived to have in our society: the ability to express femininity and to attract men.

This is why trans women like myself, who rarely dress in a stereotypically feminine manner and/or who are not attracted to men, are such an enigma to many people. By assuming that my desire to be female is merely some sort of femininity fetish or sexual perversion, they are essentially making the case that women have no worth beyond of their ability to be sexualized.

Read the rest of this post...

VoteVets slams John Boehner's attack on gay Americans who serve their country

VoteVets takes great exception to the remarks of Minority Leader John Boehner opposing the repeal of DADT:

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a policy that removes brave, qualified American servicemembers from their jobs in service to their country. It would appear that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) thinks that gays who have served their country and been removed from service are either not people, or are un-American:

Boehner predicted that any action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" and "do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work."

Repealing DADT would allow qualified gay troops who have been discharged as a result of the failed, discriminatory policy to return to work. It would also allow qualified gay Americans who have heard the call to service in uniform to serve their country without sacrificing their integrity.

As best I can tell, either John Boehner doesn't really want Americans to have jobs in a field in which they are qualified to serve, he doesn't think gays are real Americans, or he doesn't think they are people.

I'd say all of the above, plus, it gives Boehner a good platform for gay-bashing, which is a favorite ploy of GOP leaders. Watch Boehner's sneering comments about the Hate Crimes bill, which "offended" him, for a sense of how much he loathes gay Americans:
Read the rest of this post...

Kerry Eleveld on whither DADT

From Kerry Eleveld:

Certainly I welcome an end to the witch hunts that some gay service members have suffered through the pernicious 3rd-party outings by scorned lovers and homophobic colleagues.

But can “don’t ask, don’t tell” be dismantled entirely without Congressional repeal? My guess is no. And if not, Congressional action may have only one shot during Obama’s presidency and that’s this year. Democratic majorities -- if they even exist after the 2010 midterms -- will be so weakened that the path to repeal will lead straight over a cliff.

After my anonymous source last week suggested that the administration might roll out a commission that would delay repeal by at least another year, the source added, “It will be fascinating to see what the LGBT community does if they do this.”

Fascinating? Try ugly. Read the rest of this post...

Rearranging the deck chairs on DADT

I had an annoying contracts professor in law school, totally worthless class, but he had some great sayings, one of them was "Mr. Aravosis, you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." Point being, you're flailing on a losing argument.

I like the Palm Center, they're one of the top groups working on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but their latest press release, to me, reads like deck chairs:

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.”

The Obama Rule is to be more humane when treating us less than human. Yeah, it's an improvement, the same way that it's an improvement that the Obama administration, when fighting against our civil rights in court, when undercutting the movement for our most basic human rights, puts metaphorical smiley faces at the tops of those anti-gay legal briefs, not to make them less effective, but rather to make them "less mean."

Yeah, it's nice of them to loosen the handcuffs, just barely. Now lift the damn ban this year like you promised. Read the rest of this post...

Rep. Joe Wilson: Ignore military's advice on repeal of DADT, if military supports repeal

One talking point we keep hearing from opponents of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is that they'll wait to hear what the military says. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks for the military. Tomorrow, he's expected to suppor the repeal. But, guess what? Now, that the military is supporting repeal, Republicans are going to ignore their guidance, according to Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson, as quoted in the Washington Times:

"I would favor keeping the policy as it is. It is a system that is working," said Mr. Wilson, the top Republican on the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel, where Mr. Skelton has said a hearing will be held.

Mr. Wilson said that even if Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorses repeal, "I would still believe that at this time it is not the time to make a change as we are confronting two wars. I would be of the opinion we have a system that is working. … It has been very respectful of a person's privacy."

The Moonie Times reports that the repeal faces a tough battle to repeal the law. Opponents are going to use every procedural roadblock at their disposal. That's why the repeal language has to be included in the Dept. of Defense budget. Read the rest of this post...