Adorable wedding in Britain

I have no idea what "one of Prince Harry's men" even means, but it's an adorable photo of a wedding of two young men in England. Read the rest of this post...

McHugh: 'There is no moratorium of the law and neither Secretary Gates nor I would support one.'

So, in case anyone got too excited about what McHugh reportedly said yesterday, he's clarified it. The Pentagon posted his statement on its website:

“Yesterday, in response to a series of questions from reporters regarding “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, I made several statements that require further comment.

“First, while President Obama has asked Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, it is and remains the law of the land. As I have testified before Congress and Secretary Gates has made clear, the Department of Defense will continue to apply the law, as we are obligated to do.

“Second, I was incorrect when I stated that Secretary Gates had placed a moratorium on discharges of homosexual service-members. There is no moratorium of the law and neither Secretary Gates nor I would support one. Further, the recent changes to implementing regulations authorized by Secretary Gates, which I support, apply the law in a fairer and more appropriate manner; they do not in any way create a moratorium of the law.

“Third, with regard to the three soldiers who shared their views and thoughts with me on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, I might better have counseled them that statements about their sexual orientation could not be treated as confidential and could result in their separation under the law. Because of the informal and random manner in which these engagements occurred, I am unable to identify these soldiers and I am not in a position to formally pursue the matter.

There's more, but you get the point. Read the rest of this post...

Belkin and Frank release blistering statements after DOJ distorted their testimony in DADT brief

The controversy surrounding the DOJ's brief in support of DADT continues to grow. We first wrote about the brief on Tuesday morning. Yesterday, DC Agenda reported that the brief inaccurately portrayed the testimony of DADT experts Aaron Belkin and Nathaniel Frank. Today, Belkin and Frank issued very strong statements calling out the DOJ. We just got their statements via email, and were told "This statement is our direct reaction to the distortion of our testimony by DOJ." Distortion:

Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of Palm and Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara:

The DOJ totally misconstrued what I said about privacy in my deposition. Its lawyers have been utterly disingenuous about my statements in suggesting that I claimed there is a rational basis for the privacy arguments; I claimed no such thing. As I have been arguing for a decade, it is absolutely true that some service members are uncomfortable in the presence of gay troops, but that simply does not constitute a rational basis for DADT. Gays and lesbians are already serving with straight service members, and the conditions in the barracks and the showers are not going to change after the repeal of the ban. If anything, the current policy exacerbates privacy concerns because it allows gays to serve but bars troops from knowing which of their peers are gay. If the Obama administration lawyers think that my remarks in any way constitute an acknowledgement of the rational basis for the privacy rationale, then they need a new legal team.

Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow at Palm and author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America:

I’m not sure that any person in good faith hearing what I had to say could conclude what the DOJ concluded in their request for summary judgment. Read the transcript. What I say is that having a concern about privacy is not irrational. But nowhere do I say that such concerns constitute a rational basis to discriminate against gays, anymore than concerns about red-haired troops would rationally justify banning red heads. What I also say is that even Gen. Powell's now-17-year-old remarks about privacy in the force make no sense as a defense of the gay ban. To the contrary, Powell correctly explains that military service is all about sacrificing privacy. How can you justify banning open gays to preserve privacy that doesn't exist?

The Obama administration has some explaining to do. Filing this brief was bad enough. And, the always seem to go the extra mile defending the anti-gay laws. Now, Obama's DOJ has to answer for the way it distorted the testimony of Belkin and Frank. Read the rest of this post...

When Bill Donohue overthrew the Pope and arrested Jesus

Bill Donohue is so mock-worthy. And, nothing mocks better than South Park. And, South Park did Donohue a couple years ago. In my opinion, Trey Parker and Matt Stone captured the very essence of the gay-obsessed buffoon who is the Catholic League.

Here's a clip:
Read the rest of this post...

When students sang away the hateful Phelps clan

This younger generation is having none of the hate spewed by the Phelps clan. Check out this video of the students at Gunn High School in Palo Alto, California. Thanks to Marisa McNee, a proud Gunn High School alum, for sending the video. And, thanks to the students at Gunn High School. You make all of us proud.
Read the rest of this post...

Mixner: Enough. Really and seriously - enough.

David Mixner:

For the last year, over and over again in the blogsphere, we have written about how 2009 was our year. We understood never again would we have the kind of margin the Democrats had in Congress in the future, that it wasn't an election year and that the time to act was then. The Obama team, and yes HRC, told us to wait; that they had a grand plan and everything would take place in time.

Well the time is over for poetic words and empty promises. Our patience has run out. If HRC has a master plan and time schedule, we at this stage, have a right to know what it is and what the Obama team promised them last year. Simply put, enough of these political games and giving our friends permission to take detours, prolong the trip and deny us our freedom.

As our president memorably said a while ago, "Enough." Really and seriously - enough.

Read the rest of this post...

Join the 'Republicans for Lesbian Bondage' Facebook page

Free the chained elephant. Or, chain him. Or something. Read the rest of this post...

Warning: McHugh's comments did not authorize a moratorium on DADT discharges

As a follow up to the post below about the Secretary of the Army's confusing comments on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, here's a statement from Alex Nicholson, the Executive Director of Servicemembers United. It contains an important message for the media -- and for servicemembers who may be getting the wrong impression:

It is my impression from reading Secretary McHugh's comments that he doesn't intend there to be an Army-wide moratorium on DADT discharges, but rather he does not plan to pursue the discharge of anyone who has in effect come out to him during the course of his own personal engagement of Army personnel on this policy issue. I think the media needs to make an extra careful effort to get this, and other stories like this, right, since many active duty servicemembers may very likely come across this coverage at some point and since some may get the mistaken impression that it is ok to serve openly in the Army now. I didn't take McHugh's comments to be authorizing an Army-wide moratorium, and I think clarification from both the Army and the media is critical.

This could have serious consequences for servicemembers. Let's hope it gets clarified ASAP. Better yet, repeal the damn law ASAP. Read the rest of this post...

White House official suggests top gay on Obama campaign, who is now critic of Obama gay policy, is mentally unhinged

Joe and I know Steve Hildebrand, who was the number two man at the Obama presidential campaign. Steve sometimes bugs us because he seems to forgive the President too much on gay issues, though lately he's been more critical of the President's inaction on his various gay promises. This, however, is really beyond the pale:

Obama officials -- mindful that the Hildebrand Strategies Web site promotes the consultant's connection to the president -- see Hildebrand's new phase differently and dismiss his admonishments as the ravings of a sick man.

"You get the good Steve and the bad Steve. When Steve is healthy, he's a world-class operative. And when he's not, things get pretty crazy," says a White House official, who would only speak about a former colleague anonymously.

Steve suffers from depression. The White House knows this (it's not a secret). So when they call him "crazy" they're not just using the slang term for "wild." They know exactly what they're doing.

A few points. First, why do the anonymous leaks from the White House always trash liberals? Never a leak trashing a Republicans or a conservative Dem. Liberals have been called bedwetters, the left fringe, and now crazy. Second, whatever happened to the President's aversion to the politics of personal destruction? As Joe wrote earlier today, the President never visited Maine during the health care debate, when he could have put immense pressure on Republican "moderate" Senators Snowe and Collins to support health care reform - we assume because the President thought such pressure was mean, and lacking in bipartisanship. But when a gay Democrat who helped put the man in office starts to criticize the White House's aversion to following through on its gay rights promises, as Hildebrand has, the White House is all too willing to publicly declare the man insane. Read the rest of this post...

Confusion about DADT at the Pentagon poses risks for gay servicemembers

The NY Times has an article today intimating that the Secretary of the Army won't be discharging gay servicemembers:

The secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh, said Wednesday that he was effectively ignoring the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because he had no intention of pursuing discharges of active-duty service members who have recently told him that they are gay.

Sounds great, but don't crack open the champagne. It's way more complicated than that. The Christian Science Monitor takes another view of what McHugh said and what's taking place at the Pentagon:

Mr. McHugh, a former Republican congressman from New York, went a step farther, saying there is a “moratorium” on discharging gays or lesbians based on an admission of their sexual orientation for purposes of the review, when members of the “working group” or other military leaders poll them on their views.

“I’ve had men and women in uniform approach me and declare that they were gay and give me their opinion as to how they feel,” McHugh told reporters in Washington Wednesday.

That raises a question as to whether the don’t ask, don’t tell law, first implemented in 1993 after a long and controversial debate begun by President Clinton about gays and lesbians serving openly, will be upheld during this process. The review is due to Defense Secretary Robert Gates Dec. 1. Congress will then take up the issue to determine if the law should be repealed.

A spokeswoman for McHugh said the Army Secretary will abide by the law even though he must be able to conduct candid conversations with service members. The Pentagon’s top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, acknowledged last week that military officials are still trying to figure out how to talk with gay service members, but do it within the law.

So, this is muddled. McHugh is going follow the law, but not follow the law? In February, Secretary McHugh told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he opposed a moratorium on DADT during while the study was underway:

John M. McHugh, secretary of the Army, agreed. “Any number of current cases would be greatly complicated.” McHugh said his preference would be not to institute a moratorium, but promised to respect and adhere to a moratorium if it were to pass Congress.

But, now, McHugh has imposed his own version of a "moratorium"? One thing that is very clear: The current process is confusing and potentially dangerous for gay servicemembers. Aaron Belkin explained it to the CSM:

“There is no way to do it that eliminates risk for the service member,” says Mr. Belkin. “No way to inoculate the service member from risk.”

Belkin says when the Pentagon announced changes this month that essentially prevent third parties from outing gay and lesbian service members and made other changes to relax the law, they should have created a category for military leaders seeking information for the current review.

“If it were me, I would talk to the working group but I would be nervous about it,” he said. Last year, 428 service members were discharged under don’t ask, don’t tell.

The DADT law has to be repealed. This year. As promised. Read the rest of this post...

Analysis from a legal expert on whether Obama had to defend DOMA, applies to DADT

Note the sentence I bolded below. It's a point we've raised before. Other legal experts have agreed that when the President believes a law to be clearly unconstitutional, he does not have to defend it in court. So President Obama, the constitutional law professor, thinks discrimination against gays and lesbians is unconstitutional? How does he feel about discrimination against other minorities - is that constitutional? This was written in the wake of the DOMA brief debacle last summer, but is especially relevant after the DADT brief:

The closest I came to an authoritative source in the popular press is a 2005 analysis by former DOJ attorney and Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman. Lederman's contribution is more organizational than substantive; he maps historical exceptions to the Justice Department's "general policy" of defending the constitutionality of federal statutes and then groups them. Lederman identifies three categories of exceptions. First, the Justice Department will not defend a law if one or more intervening Supreme Court rulings rule out a plausible legal defense. This strikes me as obvious: The Justice Department has no business writing briefs in support of a law the Supreme Court has authoritatively deemed unconstitutional, but this is his list, not mine. Second, the Justice Department may balk at defending a law if it believes the law infringes on the proper authority of the executive branch. This is less obvious but hardly surprising when one considers the Justice Department's interests in a powerful executive branch. It's also the most commonly invoked exception, although it has yet to surface in the Obama Justice Department. Third, the Justice Department won't defend statutes that the president has publicly declared unconstitutional.

With respect to the DoMA, this third exception invites the question: Why doesn't Obama come out and call the law unconstitutional? As I see it, there are only two possible answers. The first and less plausible answer is that Obama sincerely believes the law is constitutional. I say less plausible because the president tipped his hand by calling for the DoMA's reversal. To be sure, one can find fault with a law without questioning its constitutionality, but Obama has made a point of elevating his rhetoric when addressing the DoMA, and has publicly criticized the law as discriminatory.

The second possibility is that Obama won't declare the law unconstitutional because the fallout would be messy. Not only would he create new enemies in Congress, but he would risk a small-scale turf war within the executive branch by forcing the Justice Department's hand. If that's the real hold-up, the White House has brought its argument full circle: The Justice Department won't yield unless the President declares the law unconstitutional, but the president won't declare the law unconstitutional because it would require the Justice Department to yield. It's an unfortunate, if dizzying, line of reasoning, but perhaps one we should come to expect.

Read the rest of this post...