Excellent AP Analysis Of Gays In The Military of Our Allies

It was only a matter of time before the logical dominant argument for lifting 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would rise to the surface...the fact that our allies have had no problem making the transition. Today's AP has a great report that examines the successful integration of gays in Great Britain, Australia and Israel. This is then contrasted with a whole new set of bogus charges by homophobes in the American military.

Some of the highlights from the article, prominently featured today at the Washington Post website, includes the following:

In Britain, on the other hand, uniformed gay and lesbian service members marched in the annual Pride London parade July 4. Gay Australian soldiers and sailors had their own float in Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras parade. In Israel, the army magazine earlier this year featured two male soldiers on the cover, hugging one another.

It is hard to be more battle-tested than the Israeli military, where gays have served openly since 1993. The article reports,

Maj. Yoni Schoenfeld, a gay officer who is the editor of the military magazine, Bamahane, said there was little friction in the ranks related to gay soldiers.

He served as a combat soldier and as commander of a paratrooper company, and said his sexual orientation - though known to fellow soldiers - was never an issue.

And adds,

Schoenfeld's magazine has reflected the evolving attitudes. In 2001, it was shut down briefly after featuring an interview with a retired colonel who had come out of the closet. Yet this year, there was no adverse reaction to the cover picture of two male soldiers embracing.
The military also provided the backdrop for the 2002 movie "Yossi & Jagger" about two Israeli combat soldiers who fall in love on the front lines. It was a hit with critics and the public, and was even screened on military bases.

In Australia,

The lifting of the ban was preceded by heated debate, yet the change itself was relatively uneventful.

Among opponents of the change at the time was Australia's main veterans group, which later withdrew its objections.

The group's president, retired Maj. Gen. Bill Crews, said concerns about lowered morale and HIV transmission on the battlefield proved ill-founded.

"I thought there'd be a continuing problem because of prejudice that exists in parts of the community," Crews said. "I don't see any evidence now that homosexuals are in any way discriminated against. ...A homosexual can be just as effective a soldier as a heterosexual."

Regarding Britain's experience since the change occurred 10 years ago,

At the time, there was significant opposition to the change among military officers. There were predictions that unit cohesion would suffer and that large numbers of personnel would leave the military if gays could serve.

Lord Alan West, former head of the Royal Navy and now Britain's terrorism minister, served before and after the ban was lifted.

"It's much better where we are now," West said. "For countries that don't do that - I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be. It's to do with other prejudices, I'm afraid."

Lord West added that "Americans really need to make the move."

Because the global example has refuted the allegations by homophobes in the military, there is new pompous, isolationist rhetoric being provided by the bigots in charge.

The AP article features the following lunacy:

"Who's the only superpower military out there?" argued Maj. Brian Maue, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in a debate in June in Chicago. "This is hardly convincing to say, 'Ah, the others are doing it. We should too.'"

I am sure Israel appreciated hearing that. Not to mention, every other NATO member but Turkey. And further,

Maue - who says he's been speaking out on his own, not as a military spokesman - also suggested in an online forum that "an openly gay military would be the heterosexual equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms with men."

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, is alleged to have disparaged the integration of gays in the military of our allies, without offering a shred of evidence. He adds,

Repealing the U.S. ban would trigger the departure of some career service members who object to homosexuality and deter some people from enlisting.

I wonder how many similar comments were made when our military was first subject to racial integration?

The AP article refers to Pennsylvannia Rep. Daniel Murphy's leadership in trying to get DADT repealed. Murphy, a Democrat and the first Iraq war veteran to gain election to Congress, had this to say,

"I take it as a personal affront to our warriors," he said. "To say that other countries' soldiers are professional enough to handle this and American soldiers aren't is really a slap in the face."

The last word in the AP story is given to Iraq war veteran, Army National Guard Lt. Dan Choi. Choi is facing dismissal under the DADT ban. He says,

"...don't ask" forces gays who are serving to be furtive and dishonest.

"Closeting is what causes instability," he said. "It's the most toxic poison."

As for the U.S. being different from its allies, Choi agrees.

"We are exceptional - because we take the lead on things," he said. "To me, it's an insult to the idea of American exceptionalism to say we're somehow scared of gays."

Read the full article and pass it along. It can be found here.

What Gives With "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

I have to admit, I am baffled.

There are 2 NATO nations that do not allow gays to openly serve. Turkey is one of them. Guess the other?

That's right, America is pretty much the last major Western nation to discriminate on gays in service. Currently, President Obama is allowing 2 servicepeople's lives to be ruined each day, as they get discharged.

It is an issue that affects America's security. In a vastly depleted military, we have booted an inordinately large number of Arabic translators and linguists for being gay. This is just plain lunacy.

In the global model, the nations that allow gays to serve openly, including Israel, have not reported a loss of military cohesion as a result of lifting their own bans.

That being the case, it undercuts the military's sole argument...that it would be some sort of grand social experiment and the sky might possibly fall. It is not an experiment...we have successful examples to point to. This is a no-brainer.

Additionally, in polling, a vast majority of people favored lifting the policy. In fact, even a plurality of Conservatives favored it.

So, what do we get now...Defense Secretary Robert Gates looking to use selective enforcement...another way of saying...humanely discriminate.

And today, Adm. Mike Mullen (pictured above), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had some more absurdist comments on "State of the Union" on CNN.

As the AP reported Mullen said:

"It's very clear what President Obama's intent here is. He intends to see this law change.

"I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.

One would think that would mean somebody is looking into how to change policy.

One would be wrong.

Mullen is actually loathe to initiate this at all. He said today,

"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said

This is the most important issue in the glbt political spectrum for me. I find it more necessary to resolve than the marriage issue and here is why...

We cannot expect to be treated with dignity and respect until we get our house in order. It is imperative to understand the stigma of DADT.

Gay self-identity cannot be criminalized, in and of itself. It is unacceptable. Here we are seeking to gain the full civil rights afforded by marriage, rights that we pay into the system to fund, and another part of government codifies us as unworthy.

DADT says that there is something wrong with the mere fact that a person is gay. DADT says that a gay person who is true to one's self is not worthy to serve their country. In fact, DADT encourages gay people to lie. What sort of value is that?

It was not all that long ago that gays were being lobotomized. Gay people are executed, solely for who we are, to this day.

The very least Obama should do is issue a stop-loss order to prevent any more gay people from being discharged, until the policy gets lifted.

The next thing he should do is initiate the dialogue so that we get rid of this policy, once and for all.

To this point, Obama has done nothing.

Former Army Secretary Says End DADT

In a powerful interview with Democracy Now, the former Army Secretary under Jimmy Carter, Clifford Alexander, spoke out forcefully for ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

While the Obama DOJ filing of the brief in DOMA has gotten the most attention for glbt activists, his department's filing to the Supreme Court, defending DADT, is equally troubling.

Despite the fact that Turkey is the only other NATO nation that does not integrate gays into the military, and that there is now a demonstrable global model that proves that gays serving openly do not disrupt military cohesion (an absurd argument to begin with), the Obama folks still trotted out that argument, claiming that the policy is, in fact,

"rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

In the interview with Amy Goodman, former Secretary Alexander had the following to say:

The policy is an absurdity and borderline on being an obscenity. What it does is cause people to ask of themselves that they lie to themselves, that they pretend to be something that they are not. There is no empirical evidence that would indicate that it affects military cohesion. There is a lot of evidence to say that the biases of the past have been layered onto the United States Army.

It has several negative ramifications. One is the fact that the people who are presently serving, and that’s thousands and thousands who are gays and lesbians, they have to lie every day. It’s like asking a Jewish person to act like he or she is a Muslim, or asking a Catholic to act like he or she is Buddhist, taking their fundamental values and exchanging it for silence. A second issue is, of course, that people who would want to serve in this nation’s armed services, because of their specific orientation sexually, they will not do so because they don’t want to engage in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

What we need to have, I think immediately, is an urgency about this issue and an urgency that goes well beyond the President of the United States, but also to the Congress, because it’s my understanding that the legislation has to be repealed with other legislation. So, as I understand, in the House there is some movement in that direction, but what I do not sense is that there is an urgency about this issue on the part of Americans, whatever their particular sexual orientation might be. This isn’t really just about, obviously, gay or lesbian people. It’s about what we stand for as a country, what the military is, how we can get the best skills in that military, and that—most importantly, I think, the way we are treating people who presently have to lie about their particular sexual orientation. It’s not the way this country should operate.

Watch the above interview, which also includes Nathanial Frank, who penned "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America."

Non-deceiving gays in the military are still being discharged at the rate of about 2 per day. That Obama cannot immediately issue a stop-loss order to prevent further discharges, while the policy is under review, is unconscionable. And Obama had not even initiated steps that might someday lead to lifting DADT. What is he waiting for?

Since President Obama seems to always react out of fear of offending the right-wing, it is puzzling that, even when the majority of Conservatives polled support ending DADT, the president can't just take the initiative to do the right thing.

For the transcript of the above interview, click here.

Fallout From Obama's DOJ DOMA Brief

I am pleasantly surprised to see some solid pushback to the recent Obama DOJ filing of a brief in defense of DOMA.

Initially, it appeared that the Obama team thought it could defuse the growing rage by sending out various people to attempt to indicate that they were obligated to present a vigorous defense of DOMA. That strategy was seen most clearly by some people who were vigorously posting in the forums at John Aravosis' Americablog, which, to John's credit, was the flashpoint for the pushback.

Then, there was the patronizing, and totally unacceptable response from the leading openly gay person in Obama's Cabinet, John Berry. Mr. Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, told the Advocate's, Kerry Eleveld, regarding an alleged comprehensive agenda on glbt political issues,

"Now, I’m not going to pledge -- and nor is the president -- that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration – our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure."

Let me translate this...'nothing may happen in the next 4 years, but if you help us get re-elected, we have a real shot at having our issues get addressed in the next 8.' Oh, and 'thanks for playing.'

The Reaction

First, after surprisingly little initial reaction outside of Americablog, steam picked up rather quickly.

On Monday, Rachel Maddow was front and center on the story with John Dean, who indicated how unfortunate the wording of the brief was and how, as a result, Obama may actually be forced to act sooner on DADT. Both Maddow and Keith Olbermann covered the story today.

Today, the New York Times had a powerful editorial on the subject, chastising Obama for, what they called "A Bad Call On Gay Rights."

The Times editorial began:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

And added,

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

Even the HRC, hardly known for stirring the pot, felt moved to react angrily.

However, most chilling to Rahm Emmanuel and the Obama braintrust, was the fear of losing fundraising dollars. To that end, a growing boycott against an upcoming Democratic Party fundraiser featuring VP Joe Biden has apparently produced a few crumbs from the administration.

In a hasty, last-minute leak, sources have let it be known that tomorrow, President Obama plans to announce that same-sex partners of federal employees will soon be entitled to benefits. Obama allegedly plans to announce his decision in the Oval Office.

No word yet, on whether or not Obama plans to also extend those benefits to uncles who are in relationships with their nieces.

Former Clinton Staffer Speaks Out On Obama

Former Bill Clinton staffer Richard Socarides (pictured) has just penned a fine essay on John Aravosis' Americablog, which explains why President Obama did not need to have his Justice Department prepare a highly-homophobic brief in defense of DOMA.

For those who may not be aware, the DOMA defense from Obama's team included language that compared gay marriage to incest and said the government could not afford the cost it would allegedly incur if gays were allowed to marry. For those who would like to follow that story, Americablog is as good a place as any for comprehensive coverage.

Socarides, ironically enough, is the son of legendary homophobe Charles Socarides, who championed the lie that gays could be cured by therapy.

There seems to be a concerted effort from the White House to put out talking points, suggesting that Obama's DOJ had no choice but to vigorously defend DOMA. Some have even gone so far as to trash Mr. Aravosis' blog and accuse him of stirring up hysteria and over-reaction

In his blog post, the younger Socarides wrote:

I was...troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

Socarides continues:

I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.

From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.

Further:

Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration’s lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff’s had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.

I am not suggesting that it is easy to get the DOJ to agree not to defend a law on the merits, because it is not. Someone has to be aggressive and make persuasive arguments to the president. Someone on a staff level has to believe strongly that it is the right thing to, not defending DOMA, and be willing to push hard. But it is doable. It does happen. It is one of the reasons the president needs to appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality (as I and others have previously urged).

Again, I recommend your visiting Americablog to read the full essay and read the ongoing coverage.

I know, during Pride month, various glbt groups ask for your donations and support. This year, to make sure your dollars are actually counting for something, ask them what their response to this DOJ filing was. I also would highly recommend on witholding all future dollars and support to both the Presidend and the entire Democratic Party until we actually see that they see gay people as a constituency that actually matters.

Up to now, all Obama has done is throw gays under the bus. And nobody is holding him accountable.

Let's Try This Again

The following is the text of a comment I posted at The Atlantic earlier today:

I was a glbt activist voice online in the 90s and early part of this decade. One of the reasons I pulled back is that I thought glbt interest groups were not consistent and were more interested in access, and cocktail parties, than change.

My biggest gripe with the 'gay rights establishment' was the hypocrisy over who they officially chose to mourn, and get angry about. Matthew Shepard was the death that galvanized everyone. That was correct to do. But what about Sakia Gunn (pictured above), the 15-year old African-American lesbian murdered in Newark in 2003? What about Steven Goedereis, a 29-year old man, murdered the same year Shepard was? His 2 teen killers alleged that the victim came onto him. It was the same old 'gay panic' motive, which was not supported by evidence and turned out to be a blatant lie. This man was targeted, and stomped so badly that blood shot up to an overhang. At the highly publicized trial, not one representative from a glbt organization could even be bothered to attend. I remember Mr. Goedereis' surviving partner contacting me and thanking me for being the only one that seemed to take an interest in the case.

Where was the outrage for the other victims of gay hate crimes, some of which made national headlines, but garnered no publicity, unlike Shepard. What about the murder of African-American gay man, James Byrd, who was dragged from the back of a truck? No, the only one worthy of the glbt collective anger was Matthew Shepard. But then, he looked like the people you would see in the glbt magazines. I found it disheartening, to say the least.

In the interim I have focused more on progressive politics in general, in another incarnation, I had been an avid blogger for Mr. Obama. I have seen how well that turned out.

It was Pat Buchanan's Culture Wars speech that first caused me to come out and become an activist. It is the current President's DOJ brief on DOMA that makes me realize that maybe glbt issues should be back in focus.

At the moment, I do not have any cocktail parties to distract me from speaking out.