In Louisiana they know conscience when they see it, and LA's John Fleming thinks it's a great weapon for fighting sanity in our military planning

Right-wing pols who have no conscience in real life like to play-act having one when they pretend to be legislators.

by Ken

What do you do when you look in the mirror and see staring back at you a toxic pool of sludge beyond any possibility of human worth? One solution is to become a jackbooted Christian warrior for ignorance and savagery.

Take Rep. John Fleming (R-LA). Please.

As Chris Johnson reports in the Washington Blade:

A House panel on Wednesday approved as part of major defense legislation an amendment that would make it easier for troops to harass their gay comrades without fear of reprisal.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), was approved by the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 33-26 as part of the fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill.

Fleming's measure would expand the "conscience provision" in that already exists in defense law. It would protect discriminatory speech and actions and leave commanders with no recourse against prejudicial conduct when it occurs in their units.

Further, the measure requires the Pentagon to implement regulations within 120 days after the bill becomes law. The defense secretary must consult with "official military faith-group representatives who endorse military chaplains" before the regulations are issued.

What, you ask, is this "conscience provision"? If you have any empathey with right-wing thought processes, you can probably guess that it's an instance of enforced right-wing hooliganism engineered by right-wing thugs whose minds are free of any trace of actual human conscience. Here's Chris Johnson again:

President Obama signed the existing "conscience provision" under Section 533 as part of the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Authorization Act. At the time of the signing, Obama called it "unnecessary" and said he was signing the defense package under assurances the Pentagon wouldn't "permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct."

But of course if you're a right-wing warrior for Christian psychotic savagery, you understand that a law to require the military to dance to your puppet strings trumps some Kenyan socialist fake president burbling aout Pentagon assurances that it won't "permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct."

According to Chris Johnson's report:

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said "it is disappointing" the House panel approved "this dangerous amendment" as part of the defense authorization bill.

"It is, quite frankly, puzzling why a majority of members on this committee would support a measure that has the potential to make it more difficult for commanders to responsibly deal with problems regarding conduct that undermines longstanding prohibitions against harassment," Thompson said.

The point about forcing the Pentagon to undermine its own commanders was made more broadly by Allyson Robinson, executive director of the LGBT military group OutServe-SLDN (who herself is an Army veteran):

"This amendment takes an authority this nation has entrusted to commanders in the field since its founding – the authority to exercise appropriate control over their troops' 'actions or speech' to maintain good order and discipline – and puts it in the hands of politicians in Washington," Robinson said. "As someone who has led soldiers in the field, I can tell you that is an untenable situation."

But of course a pile of sludge like Representative Fleming doesn't know or care about how the military operates, just that the military submit to the will of the Crap Christian Crazies. Of course what they're doing end-running around the hated repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and maybe even engineer some reversal of DADT repeal.

You'd like to think that a purposeless and dangerous bit of congressional chicanery like Fleming's can't survive the Congressional conference resolution process. But then, you never know. What price might saner legislators have to pay to make sure it stays out of any final bill? And in the end, who's to say it won't be judge worth the price required to suppress it. You know, the way a certain U.S. president looked the other way when he signed the original "conscience provision" into law.

#

National Coming Out Day: Buck McKeon Explains What Happens When You Get A Camel's Nose In Your Tent

As we've pointed out many times in the past, California Congressman Buck McKeon is the ultimate Washington whore, sucking up immense, legalistic bribes from whichever industry whichever committee he's sitting on is supposed to oversee. Once, when he was the ranking Republican on the Committee on Education and the Workforce he was the biggest beneficiary of the for-profit student loan industry. Now that he's the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the former mayor of Santa Clarita is on the take from defense contractors-- to the tune of over a quarter million dollars this year alone... the most of anyone in the House. War industries have pumped well over a million dollars into his political career so far, the 5th largest recipient of cash from the arms makers of anyone in the House of Representatives.

He's the war contractors' and the armaments industry's man on the inside-- the antithesis of what Dwight Eisenhower was hoping for in a public servant when he warned the country about the toxic rise of the Military-Industrial Complex way back in 1961 when McKeon was still a Mormon missionary looking for converts. So there was general shock Inside-the-Beltway when McKeon threatened to cut off all money to the Pentagon unless the military bans marriage equality. McKeon was born in the 1930's and he's obviously losing his mental facilities (just watch the video). His conservative mindset can't come to grips with equality for gay men and women. As Corey Robin explains in The Reactionary Mind, "the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders." What conservatives all have in common is "the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality." That's an apt description of what's left of the deteriorating McKeon mind.

In this Newsmakers video, McKeon starts talking about his anti-gay mania at around the 18 minute mark if you just want to get to that-- but I recommend you watch the whole clip if you have time to see how this crazy old man's mind creaks along.



McKeon's record on gay-issues is abysmal-- even by Republican standards. He has a career-long ZERO from Progressive Punch on key votes. You don't get worse than a zero. That means he voted to keep DADT and voted against including the LGBT community in hate crimes legislation and against every other bill that has sought to promote safety and equality for gay men and lesbians. As we explained on the fledgling ActBlue page dedicated to replacing Congress' worst homophobes, McKeon isn't just a garden variety homophobe. A militant Mormon bigot, what he's doing is threatening to defund the entire U.S. military-- endangering U.S. troops in the field and our national security-- unless the Pentagon takes the anti-gay action that he sees as coinciding with his own religious beliefs. Remember, even The Hill is reporting that McKeon "said that he would rather go without a defense spending bill this year than compromise on allowing military chaplains to conduct gay marriages."

Retired military chaplains have been aghast at McKeon's ugly, naked bigotry-- and are speaking out.

The Forum on the Military Chaplaincy is far from happy about the actions of House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon of California. McKeon wants desperately to impose his religious beliefs upon the military and the military’s chaplains. He has even threatened to kill the Defense Appropriations Bill if his ban on chaplains conducting same-sex marriages is not left in that bill.

Retired US Army Chaplain Colonel Paul Dodd stated “Many chaplains – Episcopal, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist Chaplains, among others – would be prevented from performing weddings or commitment ceremonies allowed by their denominations if Chairman McKeon gets his way. We stand for the rights of chaplains from all faiths to conduct services in accordance with that faith.”

In honor of National Coming Out Day, how about making a contribution to the campaign of Dr. Lee Rogers, McKeon's Democratic opponent and someone dedicated to equality for all Americans. His response to McKeon's bigoted and irresponsible threats were the kind of straight forward common sense you always hear from him:

"McKeon's decision to hold defense funding hostage if he can't block gay marriage in the military is reprehensible. Marriage equality rights should not be suspended when you put on our nation's uniform.  There's still an American flag sewn to that uniform, and that flag stands for freedom."

Is Mitt Romney-- Or Any Of Those Baboons-- Fit To Be Commander-in-Chief?

Connie & John aren't gay, but I bet a right wing mob would boo them anyway

Tomorrow afternoon, Michigan Democratic congressional candidate John Waltz is being formally endorsed by Blue America and he'll be blogging with us at Crooks and Liars (2pm, ET). Ohio Democrat Connie Pillich won't be doing a Blue America session until the end of October. Both, however, have something in common that I want to share with you now. Connie and John both enlisted in the military. Connie served in the Air Force during the Gulf War. John served in the Navy and saw action in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both, like all good Americans, were horrified at the spectacle last night at the Fox Republican "presidential" debate when the audience booed an active duty America soldier asking a question. But the ignorance and bigotry of the audience was one thing... how about these men and a crazed woman who want to be Commander-in-Cheif of the United States Armed Forces? Not one had the decency-- or the courage-- to stand up to the vile booing mob of louts in the audience. Romney may have looked embarrassed, but he didn't raise a well-sculptured eyebrow.

"It is quite obvious that Republicans are fully committed to hatred and blatant racism," John told us this morning, "which became quite evident at the debate last night. Not one presidential candidate uttered a peep about the hateful and homophobic booing of a gay soldier in Iraq. I challenge any Republican or Tealiban member to sign up for the military and get shipped over there and see if they have any complaint when a gay or lesbian soldier is protecting their lives.

"I know during my time in the service we had a massive fire and several of us were pulled out by a lesbian and not one of us stopped her to ask if she was sleeping with a man or woman that night. This behavior is despicable and should never be tolerated. The repeal of DADT was a major step forward in civil rights for our nation and anyone that is willing to serve our nation to protect our freedoms should never be discriminated against."

John Waltz is the kind of candidate Blue America is backing this year. I hope you'll come by tomorrow and meet him. If you'd like to donate to his campaign, you can do it here at our Blue America ActBlue page.

Connie serves in the Ohio state legislature and lately her battles have been around the legitimate aspirations of working families and keeping the Republicans from doing away with democracy in her state. Previously she served in support of both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield. "I find it reprehensible that any American would jeer any American soldier who simply reported for duty. All of our members of the Armed Services deserve our respect and support. And anyone running for president who will necessarily become Commander-in-Chief ought to defend and support all of our troops against such malice." Connie isn't up on the Blue America page yet (soon), but you can contribute to her campaign here for now.

Richard Allen Smith from VoteVets was as outraged-- but not as surprised, writing today that the Republican audience was finally honest with America about how they feel about America's servicemembers when they booed an active duty Soldier serving in Iraq.

[T]he audience didn't boo him simply because he's a Soldier. They booed him because he is a gay Soldier. But that shouldn't matter any more than if he were a hispanic Soldier or a blue eyed Soldier or a brown haired Soldier. He is an American service member serving in harms way. But the audience, as well as the Republican candidates who allowed this to happen without a word being spoken in support of the Soldier, still gave us valuable insight into the Republican party.

Republicans will wear their flag lapel pins and put yellow ribbon magnets on their car so long as you support their narrative. The moment you deviate from their party line, they throw you in the gutter. It's what they did to Pat Tillman. It's what they did to this Soldier last night, and it's what they've done for decades to Soldiers and Veterans by exuding superficial patriotism on the campaign trail and betraying us once they end up in office. 

It isn't just a class war we're being dragged into. It's a full-fledged war against fascism. Except this time the fascists aren't be fronted by a creep in Germany with a funny little mustache.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Ends-- No Birds Fall From The Sky

Not ready to turn the station over to far right psychopath Cindy Jacobs (see video above), Fox News seems to have been studiously avoiding the historic nature of this week's ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Funny, but for all President Obama's insistence at the UN this week that "democracy" is blooming in the Middle East-- wishful thinking, at best-- democracy in a general sense was better served by our own national decision to extend a bit of equality to millions of our fellow citizens right here at home. And this is even more so because of a concerted and coordinated effort by modern day fascists like Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, Tom Corbett, John Kasich, and other hard right Republican governors to undermine democracy in their states. Corbett, another conservative carbuncle, is the governor of Pennsylvania but I'd like to share a powerful OpEd about the ending of DADT from an esteemed Pennsylvania civic leader, former Admiral and former Congressman Joe Sestak.

On September 20, "don't ask, don't tell" will be repealed by the Defense Department, and from today forward all Americans will finally be able to serve in our military, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. As a young Navy captain, I was asked by the admiral I worked for what I thought of DADT when it became official policy during the Clinton administration. I now think ruefully about my reply: that I soon expected DADT to be overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of discrimination. Over the years, I remember a number of instances when a young sailor would approach me to let me know he was gay, intent upon no longer living a lie, and wishing I could say, "Please don’t tell me, you’re too good and I don’t want to lose you."

I had been to war for our nation with such sailors; how could I come home and not believe they deserved equal rights from the country for which they had fought with the same common purpose as their shipmates? But that wasn’t the only reason I co-sponsored the legislation to repeal DADT when I later became a congressman from Pennsylvania. I also did it for the betterment of our military.

I came to understand in the Navy that the best part of our nation’s character is that America has always been driven by an alliance of rugged individualism and common enterprise; by people striving for their individual achievement, but never measuring it apart from the greater effort. Ours is the first nation founded on principle, not power. But our nation is built upon the belief that individual principles-- freedom, suffrage, civil rights, equality-- are not attained until they extend to all. It is the success of this long struggle to embody the vision set by our founders for everyone that makes our nation-- our military-- so powerful. It is the recognition that a fair opportunity for all ensures even greater service to our common effort, our common purpose.

Shortly after arriving in the Indian Ocean during the war in Afghanistan, I launched attack planes from the aircraft carrier of my battle group, one of which had a young woman pilot. Over Afghanistan that night, she disregarded a standing order not to dive low without permission. U.S. Special Forces had been ambushed by the Taliban; four were dead and she felt there was no time to ask permission to save the rest. She immediately dove and strafed the enemy, and in her covering fire, the remaining men extracted their dead and themselves.

When I joined up during the Vietnam era, there were no women on aircraft carriers, never mind flying attack aircraft off them. Because women were later given an individual opportunity to achieve all they might desire in our Navy, our common mission that night in Afghanistan was better and saved U.S. soldiers.

My belief in the repeal of DADT is based upon my experience of the conviction that the more people given a fair opportunity for their own achievement means a greater effort for the common purpose of America. I saw during my 31 years in the Navy that America’s success is born out of the basic idea that everyone should contribute to their fullest and should be given the tools and opportunity to do so. This simple notion has been the bedrock of our achievement, where shared opportunity is shared attainment.

This is why today is important: once again we’ve looked into the national mirror and said “we are better than that.” And it is why no one should ever sell short the character of Americans, with our enormous capacity to change and grow for the better. Our courage to face the truth about the need to live up to our best ideals is why America will-- despite any challenge-- always grow stronger and move forward as one, united nation.

Yesterday in Tulsa, Oklahoma, near the home of virulently homophobic Blue Dog Dan Boren, one of only 15 Democrats-- almost all of whom were subsequently defeated for reelection-- who voted against repealing DADT, military recruiters, for the first time ever, visited a gay and lesbian social center.

There were a ton of awesome, supportive statements and the Republicans mostly kept their bigoted traps shut for a change. Military leaders and national security experts like Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who helped implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the first place, John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been very outspoken about ending this foolish, dysfunctional policy. Speaker Pelosi and Jerry Nadler were just two of the congressional leaders who worked hard to end the policy and who made inspiring statements about the success in ending this shameful episode. Pelosi:

“With the long-overdue end of the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, our nation will finally close the door on a fundamental unfairness for gays and lesbians, and indeed affirm equality for all Americans.  When the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate took action last year to end this wrongheaded policy, we reaffirmed the core American principle that anyone who wishes to serve, secure, and defend this country must be judged by their abilities and honored for their dedication and sacrifice.

“For those gays and lesbians discharged unfairly, including those who seek re-accession, we must correct their paperwork so that it properly reflects their service.  We must continue efforts to repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, but in the meantime, I urge the Obama Administration to investigate opportunities to extend the same support and benefits to all our troops and their families. We cannot allow there to be two classes of service members in our military – those who receive benefits for their families and those who do not.

“This landmark progress comes after the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense have all certified that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion.

“America is the land of the free and the home of the brave because of our men and women in uniform. And tomorrow, we honor their service by recommitting to the values that they fight for on the battlefield.”

Jerry Nadler (D-NY): "As we argued for 18 years, it is fundamentally unfair and un-American to discharge soldiers based on their sexual orientation. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is also counterproductive to maintaining a strong and effective military, with trained professionals and high troop morale.  During its 17 years on the books, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell led to the dismissal of more than 14,000 qualified servicemembers, not counting the many others who left voluntarily or chose not to serve because of the policy. Among the thousands dismissed were nearly 800 specialists, whose skills have been particularly important during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and in our efforts to fight terrorism. I am very proud that we have finally changed course and enacted a policy of fostering a strong, unified, and effective military that is open to all Americans who bravely choose to serve. We are now joining the ranks of the 35 nations that have welcomed gays and lesbians into their militaries.”

I was glad to see that the Democrat Blue America endorsed for Congress to fill the open Albuquerque seat (NM-1), Eric Griego, went right to New Mexico voters to explain the importance of the end of DADT.

With the official repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” yesterday, our nation hit an important milestone for civil rights and equality. The repeal means that every man or woman can serve in our nation’s military without fear of legal discrimination for who they are and who they choose to love.

But there is more work to be done.

Diversity makes a workplace stronger and more productive. That is why Congress should also pass and the President should sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so that all workers will be valued and respected. The military is leading the way and it’s time for Washington to step up.

As Congressman I will be a champion for equality and fight against hate and discrimination... As a nation, we should also value and respect any two persons to love and marry one another without government interference. I believe that love between individuals is a sacred right protected in the Constitution and that is why I also support the full repeal of DOMA.

Many in the LGBT community feel that Obama moved too slowly and too tepidly on this-- and on equality for gay and lesbian Americans in general. Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network isn't among them and penned a strong defense of Obama's role. "[M]ake no mistake. The President directed his forces with precision, methodically insisting all options be examined and re-examined. He realized almost from the beginning that success would depend upon the military, that he would need Gates and Mullen and his senior commanders and the troops with him to bring about this change. And he also knew that would take time. He was determined not to be rushed. The last time this was rushed without a plan and military support the results had been disastrous. He would not make that mistake... Some will rightly quibble over how long it took Obama's White House to pull off this remarkable achievement and who should get credit for what, but one thing few can argue is that repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would not have happened without a determined President Obama, the essential and unwavering buy-in and support from our military, and an awful lot of very good luck."

President Obama ended his own statement on repeal in a way bigots and fanatics would do well to think about long and hard, since it goes to the heart of the Republican Party counter-revolution they're trying to gin up on all levels right now:

For more than two centuries, we have worked to extend America’s promise to all our citizens. Our armed forces have been both a mirror and a catalyst of that progress, and our troops, including gays and lesbians, have given their lives to defend the freedoms and liberties that we cherish as Americans. Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals.

Conservative closet queens and hypocrites Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Trent Franks (R-AZ), etc all voted against equality and against honesty. They must be very ashamed this week.

Who Would You Rather Discipline You-- Homophobic Closet Queen Marcus Bachmann or Rugby Player Nick Youngquest?

Nick & Marcus

Even people who don't realize that Marcus Bachmann is a longtime closet case who was caught several times frequenting (or doing "research" in) gay macho-man leather bars, might be offended by the effeminate First Lady wannabe's taxpayer-subsidized fake therapy that insinuates it can "cure" homosexuality. Michele has made a career out of making gay people in Minnesota afraid there's something wrong with them and she and her closeted husband charge them a bundle to pray the "problem" away in a fake clinic. Not long ago Marcus was hissing about gays people that “barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined." Being "disciplined" is the theme of the gay leather bars this sick and twisted man sneaks around whenever he can get away from Michele.

Even if discipline is your cup of tea... Marcus Bachmann I don't think so!

The new issue of Out features a cover story about several gay-friendly straight athletes who are doing their bit to fight the kind of hatred and bigotry the Bachmanns have built careers around. I can't help but think of Australian rugby star Nick Youngquest as the human antithesis of Marcus Bachmann.

When Nick Youngquest stripped down for the Naked Rugby League calendar in 2006, the Australian player planned to show off his muscles, charming smile, and blue eyes. But the picture published revealed much more. It captured Youngquest’s strategically placed hand slipping away.

It was the shot seen ’round the world-- and a controversial boon for the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, the charity that benefited from its popularity. The Australian National Rugby League criticized Younquest for having gone “too far.”

Naturally, gay men disagreed. So did Youngquest, whose confidence is impenetrable. In 2008, Australia’s prominent gay magazine DNA called, and Youngquest stripped down again. This time he safely sported the smallest of swimsuits. In the years since, he’s made a habit of bearing skin in gay magazines around the world.

While taking off his clothes, Youngquest has taken on the cause of gay rights.

And I would bet anyone Nick has done a helluva lot more for the mental health and self-esteem of gay men and women than the self-loathing, hateful and perverted Marcus Bachmann. Yesterday a horde of gay "barbarians" descended on the Bachmann "clinic" (video below). The horde requested to speak directly with Bachmann and experience some “discipline” for themselves.

When Marcus was no where to be found, the barbarians glittered the empty waiting room and reception area while chanting, “You can’t pray away the gay-- baby, I was born this way!”

The action was organized by the same young man who threw glitter on Newt Gingrich, starting a national trend in political protest of anti-LGBT sentiments from political candidates and campaigns.

“Michele and Marcus Bachmann think gay people are barbarians?” asked LGBT activist Nick Espinosa. “I think its clear to everyone who the real barbarians are, based on the Bachmanns’ archaic views on LGBT equality.”

Despite Bachmann's shrill homophobia, the Pentagon today certified that military ready to proceed with repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.



UPDATE: President Obama Thinks Barbarians Might Work Out Fine In The Military

Here's a statement President Obama just gave today, which might upset the Bachmanns and their deranged, hateful supporters:

Today, we have taken the final major step toward ending the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality. In accordance with the legislation that I signed into law last December, I have certified and notified Congress that the requirements for repeal have been met. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will end, once and for all, in 60 days-- on September 20, 2011.

As Commander in Chief, I have always been confident that our dedicated men and women in uniform would transition to a new policy in an orderly manner that preserves unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness. Today’s action follows extensive training of our military personnel and certification by Secretary Panetta and Admiral Mullen that our military is ready for repeal. As of September 20th, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian.

I want to commend our civilian and military leadership for moving forward in the careful and deliberate manner that this change requires, especially with our nation at war. I want to thank all our men and women in uniform, including those who are gay or lesbian, for their professionalism and patriotism during this transition. Every American can be proud that our extraordinary troops and their families, like earlier generations that have adapted to other changes, will only grow stronger and remain the best fighting force in the world and a reflection of the values of justice and equality that the define us as Americans.

[I still oppose him on cutting back on Social Security and Medicare-- IF the rumors are true that he's joining with Boehner and Cantor and the GOP to push that through.]

Two items from the daily hatred and fear blotter

Know your church: Priests at Our Lady of the Rosary Church in San Diego have saved the Catholic Church from the abomination of allowing mass to be said for a dead homo. (The online world being what it is, I guess I better quickly add that the foregoing is written in total mocking derision of the Church's inhumane bigotry and hatred.)

by Ken

I know we've had our fair share of LGBT- or just-plain-gay-themed stories lately, and clearly these are of heightened interest to Howie and me, but I like to think they're of interest to anyone concerned with basic rights. More particularly, it seems to me that the attempt on the Right to hold the line or even push back on these fronts should be of serious concern to all lovers of freedom. I can think of two reasons:

(1) Wouldn't it be fair to say that when repression is in the air, it's targeted first at the most vulnerable groups? It would be wise not to imagine that the Unholy Warriors of the Right will only be going after the LGBT contingent. This is an "orthodoxy issue," and the Upholders of the Right have their sights set on all deviants from the One True Path.

Call this the Canary in the Mine Factor.

(2) Because hatred of all things LGBT is perhaps the most emotional of all the organized-religious hatreds, the current jihad is being waged with a backs-against-the-wall ferocity, with a sense of the Forces of Darkness closing in on the Righteous. What I'm suggesting is that we're seeing with better than usual clarity the special viciousness and dehumanization that lies at the core of the Defense of Orthodoxy when the defenders feel they're under siege.

It may seem paradoxical, but the very same ferocity can be triggered when the Defenders score victories, as they have, for example, in all the public referenda on same-sex marriage laws. It may not seem reasonable that they react almost identically in victory and defeat, but I think the common thread is raw hatred and fear, which when you get down to it seems really what the most fire-breathingly orthodox of orthodox religionists are all about.

Call this the Hatred and Fear Factor.

FROM TODAY'S HATRED AND FEAR BLOTTER --

I. DADT isn't going quietly

We know now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is not going to be consigned to the dustbin of lousy public policy during the Pentagon stewardship of Robert Gates on Thursday. Opinion is divided as to whether the advent of Leon Panetta as defense secretary is going to provide, intentionally or otherwise, an excuse for further delay in the secretary's certification of military readiness for repeal. Most obviously, a new secretary taking the reins of a department as vast and complex as the DoD, especially with approximately two and a half wars in progress, is going to have his hands full and could easily justify setting other priorities. Beyond that, if the new secretary feels that on this particular matter he must do his own due diligence, well . . .

Further delay would be regrettable from a theoretical standpoint, of course. DADT is not only demeaning to the people it targets, it also undermines our national security by depriving the military of the services (and special skills) of a lot of people who want nothing more than to serve honorably. But further delay continues to take a serious toll on servicemen and servicewomen. Remember, the Obama Pentagon has never stopped enforcing DADT.

Consider this report from Advocate.com:

Pentagon Confirms New DADT Discharges

By Andrew Harmon
Posted on Advocate.com June 27, 2011 03:30:00 PM ET

The Pentagon confirmed Monday that more service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” pending certification of the policy’s repeal, with one individual’s discharge approved as recently as Thursday.

A total of four airmen have been discharged under the policy in the last several weeks, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed Monday.

One of those individuals is Airman First Class Albert Pisani, who spoke to The Advocate earlier this month of his voluntary separation under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which defense officials approved on April 29.

Air Force spokesman Maj. Joel Harper told The Advocate that the discharges of three additional service members — two female staff sergeants and one male second lieutenant— have been approved since an April 29 discharge. Harper declined to say whether Pisani was the April 29 discharge, citing confidentiality reasons.

When The Advocate story ran, Defense officials had said that the separation approved April 29 was the only such discharge under DADT since late October, when the Defense Department limited authority for discharges to just five senior officials.

But in a statement, Harper confirmed the additional discharges since. “On May 31st, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force approved discharges of two Airmen under the provisions of 10 USC 654 [the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy],“ Harper said. “On June 23, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force accepted the resignation of an Airman who asked to be separated under the provisions of [DADT].”

Harper said that all four individuals discharged had made voluntary statements regarding their sexual orientation and had asked to be “separated expeditiously.” . . .

II. The Church hounds a victim beyond the grave

This item seems to me just plain nauseating. Without further preamble:

Catholic Church denies funeral mass to San Diego gay businessman

Posted by San Diego LGBT Weekly, Monday, June 27th, 2011

In a decision reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s refusal to hold a funeral mass in 2005 for openly gay businessman John McCusker, Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Little Italy has canceled a funeral mass scheduled this Thursday morning for openly gay businessman John Sanfilippo, owner of the SRO Lounge, a popular gay cocktail bar.

Sanfilippo died on Friday, June 24.

City Commissioner Nicole Murray Ramirez, a friend of the Sanfilippo family, talked to his partner of 30 years, Brian Galvin. “The Sanfilippo family and Brian are, of course, devastated and are trying to get the mass in another church,” Murray Ramirez said.

When the parish priests found out about the gay relationship of Sanfilippo and Galvin, the priests said they were uncomfortable with Sanfilippo and Galvin’s relationship, according to Murray Ramirez, adding the church notified the family on Sunday that the Thursday funeral mass was canceled. . . .

I hate to be judgmental (chuckle), but this strikes me as beyond the pale even for the Church of Bigotry, Hatred, and Fear. The San Diego LGBT Weekly story notes that City Commissioner Ramirez has contacted the San Diego Diocese "for a clarification of its policy of funeral masses for LGBT Catholics and is planning to press for a policy statement from Bishop [Robert] Brom." It should be interesting to see how the bishop responds (or doesn't).

#

Is it time yet for the people who've opposed DADT repeal so fiercely that they've had their heads up their butts?

I spent a lot of time studying older and newer photos in order to be able to distinguish between the pre- and post-haircut Justin, so armed with all this background research I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is "post." (Generally unnoted in the attendant hubbub over the haircut is the fact that as the youngster aged into late-teendom, the old "do" was coming to look kind of silly -- for, you know, a person of his age.)

by Ken

Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin -- you'd think there was nothing else happening in the world. When we will we ever find time for the important stories? (if we must have more Wisconsin, an excellent contribution today is Paul Krugman's NYT column "Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.," in which he continues to hammer home the crucial point about the wave of far-right-wing revolution sweeping the country: that it has nothing to do with budget-balancing but follows the now-familiar right-wing strategy of using disaster as cover for ideological transformation.)

LET'S SEE, IN THE IMPORTANT NEWS . . .

Where to start? Well, certainly the most impactful story of the week is Justin Bieber's haircut. Heck, I barely know who this kid is, but I know this story is important.

Then there's Charlie Sheen's . . . well, Charlie-being-Charlie. And will he or won't he return to Two and a Half Men? By his own or CBS's choice? And can the show survive without him? It's a shame Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell and Hannah Arendt aren'there to help us grapple with these momentous questions.

Or, of equally long-term significance, there's the long-after-the-fact revelation that the Newscorp exec who urged Judith Regan to lie to federal investigators about her affair with Bernie Kerik (if you've had an affair with Bernie Kerik, do you really need someone to tell you you should lie about it? of course technically you're really not supposed to lie to federal investigators, or to pressure other people to) was none other than the master of Fox Noise, Roger Ailes. (At the time, it's assumed, Newscorp impresario Rupert Murdoch was still nurturing the presidential hopes of Rudy Giuliani, and didn't want to see him embarrassed by his close association with Bernie K. As it turned out, Rudy G was more than capable of embarrassing himself.)

The suggestion has been that our Judith used a tape of a phone conversation with the then-still-anonymous exec to, er, encourage Newscorp to give her something like $10M to go quietly -- only to turn around and with supremely bad manners to file another $100M lawsuit! Of course if it had been one high-ranking official of, say, ACORN, encouraging another to lie to federal investigators, they would both long since have been tarred and feathered. Luckily, we've grown beyond this juvenile "government of laws" concept.

SO WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE US?

Well, there's the long-simmering scandal of Facebook's birthday coercion racket, which involves blabbing about the date to every poor soul who showed the questionable judgment to sign on as a person's "friend." The only thing more pathetic than being party to this shameless pandering is having it yield a total-so-far of three birthday greetings, one of which seemed more concerned with picking a fight. (It's possible that an individual person might be overly sensitized on this subject if by chance last year at this time, in the several weeks before the day, he had the two people who habitually remembered the occasion go and die on him.)

CAN'T WE TRY TO BE SERIOUS?

Instead I think maybe we'll do a follow-up on a report I passed on recently, concerning the military's preparations for dealing with DADT repeal. As I noted in my previous post, OutServe co-director JD Smith has been tracking procedures being put into place by the various military service branches for implementing DADT repeal, and he's now sharing a batch of e-documents being sent out by the Army.

There is, for example, an FAQ on DADT repeal, which answers questions like: "What education will be required for Soldiers and their families when repeal occurs?," "What is the changed policy on sexual orientation in the military?," and "Does repeal affect standards of conduct?" (this is an easy one: "Standards for personal and professional conduct apply uniformly without regard to
sexual orientation"). There's a list of "10 things you need to know for DADT Repeal. There's a DADT PowerPoint specifically for Army JAGs.

And there's this "Army DADT FAQs":

ARMY GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REPEAL OF DADT

1. Leadership Matters Most: Commanders’ and senior non-commissioned officers’ leadership and personal commitment to implementation must be visible and unequivocal.

2. Standards of Conduct Apply to Every Soldier: Our standards of conduct apply equally to all Soldiers regardless of sexual orientation.

3. Treat Each Other with Dignity and Respect: Unit strength depends on the strength of each Soldier. We achieve that strength by treating each Soldier with dignity and respect.

4. Application of our Rules and Policies Will be Sexual Orientation Neutral: Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter. All rules and policies, and the enforcement of those rules and policies, will be sexual orientation neutral.

5. Emphasize Our Role as Professional Soldiers: Leaders will emphasize Soldiers’ fundamental professional obligations and the oath to the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them that is at the core of their military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military policy and standards of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion.

6. Keep it Simple: Education and training should focus on actions and policies needed to maintain the good order and discipline of an effective fighting force.

7. There Is No Expectation To Change Religious or Moral Views: Soldiers will not be expected to change their personal views and religious beliefs. They must, however, continue to treat all Soldiers with dignity and respect..

8. Good Order And Discipline Will Be Maintained At All Times: Commanders and supervisors at all levels have the authority and responsibility to maintain good order, discipline and morale within their units. Harassment, bullying, or victimizing of any kind will not be tolerated.

9. Chaplains have both the right to serve and conduct religious services according to their faith and a duty to perform or provide religious support: The existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal. These regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and the duty to care for all.

10. Stay Focused on Your Mission: Conduct training to minimize disruption on the force to ensure our military mission is not negatively impacted.

Now I realize that just saying this stuff isn't the same thing as getting it done, having all Army personnel suddenly get with the new program. What I want to call attention to here is how, relatively speaking, how simple, clear, and commonsensical this all is. And then remember how passionately, how vociferously, even how apocalyptically this has all been fought -- and in some circles continues to be fought -- by the community of never-say-die homophobes, even in the face of the evidence from more enlightened countries that have tumbled sooner to reality, and discovered that integrating servicepeople of varying sexual orientations is simply no problem.

I'm not thinking just, or even primarily, of the familiar chorus of Krap Kristian Krazies. How about a tip of the hat to the likes of military-preparedness phonies like Senators Young Johnny McCranky and Lindsey Graham. For goodness' sake, this is an issue that even their usual partner in lying stupidification Holy Joe Lieberman knew better. Isn't it time for an apology from them at minimum, and more usefully an open admission of their previous crapitatiousness? An immediate and permanent retirement from public life would certainly seem appropriate but goes beyond anything I'm hoping for. I'll settle for a nice prime-time "Jeez, I can't believe how full of doody I was."

Fortunately, it turns out that within our military there are contingents of planners going about their business. The path may not be as smooth as one hopes in one's fondest imaginings, but at least it's not dependent on bigoted, retarded, hate-mongering sociopaths.

I believe what Senator Graham is saying, and Senator McCranky thinking, is: "Jeepers, I can't believe how totally full of doody I've been!"

#

Can we trust the military to police sexual harassment of any kind, let alone the anti-LGB kind?

The U.S. military's historically pervasive straight-horny-boys-will-be-horny-boys attitude doesn't bode well for its commitment to protecting non-straight servicefolk from discrimination and harassment.

by Ken

JD Smith, co-director of OutServeUS, "the underground network of LGBT actively serving military personnel," has been keeping tabs on orders issued by our various armed forces for implementation of training for the post-DADT era in the military. You can keep track of his tweets here, most recently from Friday:

Received confirmation that the AF has started to distribute at least tier 1 #DADT training. We have @outserveus members that have taken.

Since nobody understands less about tweeting than I do, or gleans less information from them, here are some links I extracted from JD's tweets:

* Marine Commander PowerPoint on "Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)" [2/16]

* "Navy Timeline on Training" [2/8], TwitPics of "marine/navy commander training" [2/10], and a TwitPic of "More training" from the Navy [2/11]

This is all highly encouraging. We're often assured by military types that the military is punctilious about following the law, and can be trusted to adapt to enforce changes in law pertaining to it.

I'm not the only one who has limits to my trust, however. We're still not seeing how the military plans to cope with resistance through the ranks to the elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation, a mindset that after all is ingrained in the minds of an awful lot of military personnel -- including, for example, many of the chaplains on whose behalf loud and persistent objections to DADT repeal were raised, claiming that these folks were going to be coerced to violate their religious beliefs, as indeed I guess they will be if their religious beliefs are homophobic, as apparently many of theirs are. (We hear a lot of horror stories about the extremely right-wing impact on military personnel of the heavily right-wing evangelical contingent among the chaplains.)

Part of my inherent distrust of the military's will to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation is the military's generally dismal record on dealing with matters of sexual conduct altogether.

Society at large, we know, deals very, very badly with sex. Given the basic authoritarian impulse of people who crave power to control, it may be that nothing, not even the lust for money (which after all is usually built into that craving for power), is so disruptive to that control as the lust for flesh. We know that it's part of the most basic human organism, but that only makes it more dangerous to the authoritarian mind set, since after all it means that every human under its nominal control is a potential sexual renegade.

Society at large, as I say, has never gotten a grip on this problem of sexuality, especially since the onset of the famous Sexual Revolution, which aimed precisely at loosening that grip. Military society has it even worse, because it has a long history of exploiting sexual aggressiveness. In the standard military mindset, after all, the qualities that make good soldiers often come hand in glove with -- heck, are thought to be the very same qualities as -- those that produce abusive sexual behavior. As long as it could, the military got by with the old "boys will be boys" attitude.

But then, the straight white male arbiters of social orthodoxy have always had a soft spot for straight white male sexual predation. In the orthodox view, after all, why did God create women except to serve as (a) men's household servants and (b) outlets for men's sexual urges? Isn't it in the Bible? (Well, not exactly, but the straight white male social autocrats manage to find biblical authority for every bit of repressive behavior they like.)

We have a general idea of how hard it has been for the military "good old boys" to deal with the increasing presence of women in their midst, and my guess is that even now an awful lot of U.S. military women would argue that the military still hasn't dealt with their presence, in terms of imagining women as something other than sexual playthings for their horny "boys." I can't think of any reason to imagine that the conduct of openly LGB servicemen would be in any way objectionable or deleterious to military discipline, any more than it is now among the many serving LBG military people -- in contrast to the wildly objectionable sexual conduct of all those boys-being-straight-boys.

In this context I'm more than a little alarmed by this latest development in a story I've been following only vaguely. I suppose I should couch this in terms of "claimed"s and "alleged"s, and from a proper legal standpoint those would be totally appropriate. But we're dealing with military justice here, and military justice rarely recognizes the niceties of the regular kind. And in this instance, does anyone really have any doubt as to who's telling the truth and who's trying to cover its dirty military butt?

From the San Diego LGBT Weekly:

EXCLUSIVE: Joseph Rocha refutes news report that “flawed, unsubstantiated” claims led to his DADT discharge

Posted by LGBT Weekly, Saturday, February 19th, 2011

BY JONATHAN YOUNG

The Associated Press has reported, “the Navy says it wrongly accused Navy dog handler Michael Toussaint of singling out a gay sailor for hazing at kennels he ran in Bahrain.” However, that gay sailor, San Diegan Joseph Rocha, says the AP has their facts totally wrong.

Former Petty Officer Third Class Rocha, who was discharged in 2007 under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, says Toussaint singled him out for being gay, causing him mental trauma and his exit from the Navy. The AP released a story on Thursday, citing two anonymous sources, saying, “Two Naval officers now say that Navy officials have found the investigation into Rocha’s charges was flawed, and the claims unsubstantiated.”

In an interview exclusive to the San Diego LGBT Weekly, Rocha says the AP version is not the Navy’s official view, and even though he has high-ranking Naval officials backing him, the AP will not retract nor correct their story.

“The official story is the United States Navy has come to a conclusion as to how to proceed with the discharge of Senior Chief Toussaint, and what type of discharge he would receive, what rank and what pay he would be entitled to after that discharge,” Rocha said. “First thing yesterday (Thursday) morning, the Under Secretary (Juan Garcia, Assistant Navy Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs) contacted me to let me know the decision.”

Garcia’s decision, obtained by the San Diego LGBT Weekly through Rocha, reads:

“I approved the recommendation of the Retirement Grade Determination Board that MACS Toussaint transfer to the Fleet Reserve in paygrade E-8 with an honorable discharge. In making my determination, I thoroughly reviewed the matter, and weighed heavily material provided in the statements recorded during the initial command investigation and the record of proceedings from the Retirement Grade Determination Board.

“Ultimately, MACS Toussaint’s conduct as the Leading Chief Petty Officer assigned to the Military Working Dog Division, Naval Security Forces, Bahrain, did not meet the standards expected of senior enlisted leadership in our Navy. The Secretary of the Navy concurred with the CNO’s decision that Toussaint not be permitted to re-enlist in the United States Navy. However, when looking at his career in its entirety, I have determined that his conduct did not rise to a level sufficient to warrant retirement in a paygrade less than E-8.”

“The official decision is quite simply that the judgments and actions of Senior Chief Toussaint, while in charge of the canine unit in Bahrain, were not what was expected of senior leadership, and did not fit in with the Navy’s core values,” Rocha summarized, adding, “Which is not anything different than what we were expecting.”

The AP reported an entirely different story.

“They (the AP) went on to write 136 words based on two anonymous sources that were not official and made it read like it was coming from the institution of the Navy,” Rocha said. The two sources were never named, and the story read, “The officers spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private personnel matter.”

The AP contacted Rocha after the first story was released, seeking to get his reaction for a second expanded story.

“They didn’t bother to tell me that the original story and the following story were going to accuse me of being a fraud,” Rocha said. “So I offered a reasonable and respectful quote that reflected the conversation that I had with the Under Secretary. That quote was then used in the longer piece that was used to attack me.”

The second version of the story spread across the country on Friday, with major publications reprinting the report, including versions in The Washington Post newspaper and Advocate magazine.

After reading the AP stories, Rocha immediately called Garcia to confirm the position of the Navy, “which would have been an underhanded insult, considering the conversation we had earlier,” Rocha said. “He insisted that the AP stories were not the position of the Navy.”

Also during the second conversation, Rocha said Garcia already had attempted to contact the AP to correct the story with the accurate report. Garcia also said he was “unclear” to who the anonymous sources were, according to Rocha.

“Essentially he was telling me over the phone that everything the Navy has produced supports what I am saying,” Rocha continued. “Nowhere will it say they made any wrongful accusations, and nowhere will it say they are retracting or going back on what they said a year ago when they first pulled Chief Toussaint out of active duty. And his memos and official writings were consistent with finding of Toussaint leadership and actions that did not fall in line with core values of the United States Navy.”

Repeated emails from Rocha to the AP writer have gone unanswered. Inquiries to the AP from Garcia’s staff have also been answered, according to Rocha. . . .

Now the Navy actually doesn't come off too bad here. Secretary Garcia's version of the decision, while it still sounds to me like a whitewash relative to the Navy's own reckoning of the facts, at least the Navy seems to have made some reckoning of those facts, but this is in a situation that had already become embarrassingly public, and the overall judgement doesn't seem to me to bode well for the kinds of situations that are bound to arise after DADT passes from the military code.

Which still leaves the whole question of where the AP's wildly divergent story came from, and how it became, effectively, the version of public record.

#

So General Amos, the commandant of the Marines, knows how to honor his uniform after all

Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine commandant, and Carlton W. Kent, sergeant major of the Marine Corps, deliver to their fellow marines a confident, unequivocal, and determined commitment to enforcement of DADT repeal, including an upbeat exhortation to "respect the rights of all who wear this uniform."

by Ken

General Amos took a lot of heat, and deservedly so, for his publicly expressed skepticism that the Marines could safely implement DADT repeal, rather flagrantly stepping outside the military chain of command. I thought he should have been fired on the spot, and I still think he would have deserved it.

But I'm here to give him credit for taking this initiative to prepare the corps for the new era where mutual respect is to take the place of lawful bigotry. I don't see how he and Sergeant Major Kent could have made a stronger or more affirmative presentation to their fellow marines. There's no reason why sexual preference should in any way compromise military discipline, as we already know from the experience of countries that have taken this step, and discovered that it was really no big deal at all. Of course people who want there to be trouble have the power to make trouble; as both General Amos and the Sergeant Major Kent stress, the key to making sure that doesn't happen is leadership at all levels, and they've set a stirring example here.

For those of us who worried about problems in DADT-repeal implementation arising from equivocation and foot-dragging in the Marines, it's especially gratifying to see the USMC on the contrary taking the lead in upholding the new (however long overdue) law of the land.

Immediate winners: the many gay men and lesbian women already serving proudly in the Marines, who can look forward to a new era in which their service is finally fully respected, by their country and by their peers. It's good for the morale of the corps and good for the country's miiitary preparedness. The only losers are the bigots and haters, and they deserve to lose.


TO SHOW HOW UN-DIFFICULT IT IS TO TREAT
LGB SERVICEMEMBERS JUST LIKE ANY OTHERS . . .

and also to show that the U.S. military establishment is already capable of doing it once the bureaucratic wheels are properly aligned, here's a report from the Chicago Sun-Times, with emphasis added but, it seems to me, no further comment required:

Gay Marine’s husband surprised at respect shown by Naval Academy

Neil Steinberg nsteinberg@suntimes.com Jan 29, 2011 11:03AM

John Fliszar had a heart attack in 2006 and was rushed to Illinois Masonic Medical Center.

“When I was in the emergency room with him, he asked me to promise him, if he died, to make sure his ashes were interred in the Naval Academy,” said Mark Ketterson. “He loved that place. He very much wanted to be there.”

Fliszar, a Marine aviator who served two tours in Vietnam, survived that heart attack. But last July the Albany Park resident suffered another one that killed him at age 61.

Hoping to fulfill Fliszar’s wishes, Ketterson contacted the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and told them that Fliszar, Class of ’71, had wanted to have his ashes interred at the USNA’s Columbarium, a serene white marble waterside crypt next to the school’s cemetery.

The memorial coordinator asked about his relationship to the deceased. Ketterson said that John Fliszar was his husband.

“They were always polite, but there was this moment of hesitation,” Ketterson recalled. “They said they’re going to need something in writing from a blood relative. They asked, ‘Are you listed on the death certificate?’ ‘Do you have a marriage license?’ ”

He was and they did, the couple having been married in Des Moines when gay marriage became legal in Iowa two years ago.

Ketterson sent a copy of the marriage license. That changed everything.

“I was respected,” he said. “From that moment on, I was next of kin. They were amazing.”

The USNA alumni association sent Ketterson a letter expressing condolence for the loss of his husband.

The USNA says Fliszar’s interment followed standard operating procedure.

“His next of kin was treated with the same dignity and respect afforded to the next of kin of all USNA grads who desire interment at the Columbarium,” said Jennifer Erickson, a spokesperson for the academy. “We didn’t do anything differently.”

Shipmate magazine, the publication of the USNA’s alumni association, ran Fliszar’s obituary. It noted his two Purple Hearts for “having been shot down from the sky twice in military missions.” It noted “for the rest of his life he would joke about his ‘government issued ankle.’ ” It noted “his burly but warmly gentle manner.” It noted he was “survived by his husband, Mark Thomas Ketterson.”

“The word ‘husband’ in the obituary has created a bit of a stir,” said Ketterson, a Chicago social worker. “I’ve heard from a number of officers. It’s been amazing. This has not been absolutely confirmed, but I think I’m the first legal same-sex spouse who planned a memorial.”

The memorial service was held in October, in “the beautiful, beautiful Naval Academy chapel,” said Ketterson. A uniformed officer stood in the back and played taps.

“They did the standard military funeral, a wonderful service,” said Ketterson. “Since I was the designated next of kin, they were going to present the flag to me, but I deferred to his mom. She gave it to me.”

One of the groups Ketterson heard from afterward was USNA-Out, the organization for gay graduates of the Naval Academy.

“From my perspective, attitudes and actions are changing at the Naval Academy and certainly at the alumni association,” said Brian Bender, chair of USNA-Out, observing that while he “can’t speak for the Navy as a whole, we do interact with active-duty Navy folks, and they check in with their chain of command.”

I tried to find someone who could speak for the Navy as a whole, but with whatever era replaces “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ still in its infancy, well, let’s say that Navy communications specialists are not jostling each other for the chance to address this subject.

While the public generally approved of the official end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ in the U.S. military, the details still need to be worked out. The thorny issue isn’t ending the costly and counterproductive practice of forcing gays out of military services -- that cost $40 million a year to enforce and deprived the armed services of thousands of qualified personnel. A bigger challenge is the question of entitlements: Who is a survivor? Who gets military benefits?

A marriage certificate was the key that let the USNA know how to treat Ketterson in relation to his husband’s service. Gays in the military and gay marriage are thought of as separate issues, but without legal gay marriage, or at least civil unions, how can the military know who gets the folded flag?

Such practical concerns were far from Ketterson’s mind when he and Fliszar got married after dating for six years — “because I loved him and he asked me,” Ketterson said, adding that the USNA alumni he’s heard from have made grieving more bearable.

“It’s been some months. I’m still doing mourning,” Ketterson said. “As a gay man who grew up in a military family, getting communications from USNA, having heard from alumni who say, ‘You will always be one of us’ — that’s powerful, and healing.”

“One of the e-mails said that I was a ‘trailblazer,’ ’’ said Ketterson. “I didn’t blaze any trail. I buried my husband.”

That said, he still finds himself marveling at how it all unfolded.

“I am a patriotic American, but I know this is not a perfect world,” he said. “The point is, when the chips are down, when the issue was patriotism and honor for a veteran, they were wonderful. Whatever their private feelings, they made me proud to be an American. We really do get it right sometimes.”

"We really do get it right sometimes." Yes, indeed.

#

Supporting a hero like Frank Kameny

CNN caption: "President Obama shakes hands with Frank Kameny after extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers in 2009."

by Ken

There aren't many contexts in which I can think of myself as "young," but I guess I can say that I'm too young to remember what the world looked like when Frank Kameny, as an openly gay man, began his long career as an activist seeking equality of treatment. One limitlessly heart-warming side note to President Obama's signing of the DADT repeal act was the outreach effort that brought Frank to the White House for the occasion.

My friend and colleague Bob Witeck has passed along this note, which I'm pleased to pass on to our readers, LGBT and otherwise, in the belief that a heroic crusader for basic human rights is a hero to everyone who believes in basic human rights.

Our community is blessed with several long-lived heroes and doers, and yet many also have passed on. A handful of early pioneers like 85-year-old Dr. Frank Kameny remain with us, not only as personal reminders of their sacrifices and hard work, but also as markers how far we’ve come on the path to equal rights.

Remarkably, Dr. Kameny was a special White House guest attending the President’s signing of the DADT repeal, and a true living witness to a protest he led a half-century ago to achieve that aim. Frank’s legacy is well known, and fortunately the subject of a forthcoming bio by David Carter (as Carter recently told CNN).

Frank always has paid it forward. For many of us, there now is a way to pay him our respects too. "Buy Frank a Drink" is the brainchild of a well respected, bare bones Washington DC nonprofit called Helping Our Brothers and Sisters. HOBS (details below) has been working with Frank for some time now, insuring that his basic life needs are met as he meets the challenges that face many of our aging advocates including heroes like Dr. Kameny. Frank was indeed the subject of anti-gay discrimination many years ago, and as a result, has only a very modest retirement income.

This cause, "Buy Frank a Drink," is a low-dollar way that anyone today may choose to help Frank with such essentials as taxi vouchers, and to be very sure his utilities are paid, and to ensure his phone, electricity, heat remain on and workable, as well as property taxes remain current and paid. Fortunately Frank is also eligible and receives public support through programs maintained by the District of Columbia, which is a valuable lifeline.

Helping Our Brothers & Sisters - Non-Profit
Post Office Box 53477
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone # 202-986-6317
E-mail: RavenArrow@aol.com
Website: www.HelpingOurBrothersandSisters.org

#

Streams of Consciousness, Dec. 23

A couple days ago we reported on the smoldering controversy over hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, seeping into most cities' drinking water in serious enough quantities to make the water carcinogenic. Yesterday California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein asked the EPA to set national safety standards for chromium-6.

Meanwhile, concern is mounting across the country that drinking tap water regularly will increase the chances of getting stomach cancer and leukemia, while also increasing the risk of potentially fatal liver and kidney damage. The chemical industry and their Republican allies have vowed to fight any attempts to pass legislation taking away the freedom to pollute and the liberty of water consumers to poison themselves and their families if they decide to. That kind of Freedom and Liberty is very important to Republicans. In their universe, it's the heart and soul of the free market. You see, in GOP-land, those who can't afford bottled water deserve to die anyway-- and if enough people do die from drinking tap water, the survivors will drink something else instead... like Coca-Cola, beer... even urine is less toxic. Industries say it would be too expensive for them to keep chromium-6 out of the drinking water and they need it for tanning leather and making some stainless-steel products. You know what they say about the bottom line!

Let's take rubber-stamp Republican Congressman Lee Terry of Omaha, for example. Terry almost never varies from John Boehner. Their voting records are nearly indistinguishable, and both are committed to defending the freedom of chemical companies to poison the population. Omaha, alas, is one of the cities badly hit by the chromium-6 disaster. While the proposed limit in the state of California is .06 parts per billion, Omaha's water tested at 1.07 ppb-- not nearly as bad as Norman, Oklahoma's 12.90 ppb, but enough to kill plenty of Omaha's poor people in a variety of very unpleasant ways.

The chemical industry has given Rep. Terry $36,000 in thinly veiled bribes to keep him on the reservation and not have him do anything crazy-- like look out for his constituents back in Nebraska. In 2008, his constituents nearly threw him out of office; he beat Democrat Jim Esch by a mere 10,000 votes out of over 273,000 cast-- 52-48%. This year he did much better against Tom White, whom he beat 61-39%. Terry isn't doing anything about safe drinking water standards at all. Perhaps he thinks his seat will be safer if more working people just die.


Arsonists Prosecuting Firefighters

Krugman was talking about the fact that the the rating agencies, in sucking up to the pooh-bahs of finance, brought the current financial crisis on the world. He makes a great point, but I jumped right to Tom Coburn and his crazy right-wing Republican allies, particularly Mike Enzi (R-WY), selfishly and obstinately blocking health care for 9-11 first responders. Most of the Senate just stared at Coburn like the freak he is and then voted to pass the widely popular legislation. In fact, by the end of the day support was so overwhelming that Coburn was pressured by relatively saner Republicans to just back down and let it pass by unanimous consent.

The increasingly deranged and stubborn Coburn insisted the reimbursements for the firefighters and other first responders are "an entitlement," a bad word, not related in his mind to the fact that they actually are entitled to this help from society for the job they did on the front lines after the 9-11 disaster that Coburn did nothing to prevent. Coburn is also pissed off that the costs of the bill are being covered by closing foreign corporate tax loopholes, loopholes that Coburn favors.

And The Senate Ratifies START By A Landslide

After all that sturm und drang from Kyl and his cronies looking for another Waterloo for Obama, the Senate overwhelmingly ignored the dominant obstructionist faction of the Senate GOP caucus and approved the nonpartisan treaty between the U.S. and Russia that mandates new reductions in both nations' deployed strategic nuclear weapons. The final vote was 71-26, with 13 Republicans ignoring McConnell, McCain and DeMint and their hysterical politicization of national security. All the adult types among the Republicans voted for ratification.

And that was the end of the 111th Congress. Both houses adjourned. Here's a video montage of some of what was accomplished, although that Obama bullshit about Afghanistan and his and McConnell's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires kind of spoils the whole thing:



GOP Front Groups Still Hope To Milk Homophobia For Donations

Yesterday President Obama signed the repeal of DADT, which passed by a wider margin in the Senate than anyone expected, even far right Republicans like Richard Burr (NC) and John Ensign (NV) abandoning Miss McConnell and the Mean Sisters, McCain and Graham-- two closet queens and a bitter, nasty old man-- to be party to history instead of getting run over by it.

But as Right Wing Watch pointed out, the Family Research Council, a Republican Party hate group, is already threatening to sue to prevent repeal from being enacted. They're in cahoots with McCain in trying to undermine implementation of the new law. And then there's this:



President Obama, after signing the bill yesterday, had something very different to say, something that will probably resonate more forcefully with normal Americans:

Sixty-six years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forests of Western Europe, Allied Forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the Battle of the Bulge. And in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th Division of Patton’s Third Army came under fire. The men were traveling along a narrow trail. They were exposed and they were vulnerable. Hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy.

And during the firefight, a private named Lloyd Corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine. And dazed and trapped, he was as good as dead. But one soldier, a friend, turned back. And with shells landing around him, amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring Private Corwin to safer ground.

For the rest of his years, Lloyd credited this soldier, this friend, named Andy Lee, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone. It was a full four decades after the war, when the two friends reunited in their golden years, that Lloyd learned that the man who saved his life, his friend Andy, was gay. He had no idea. And he didn’t much care. Lloyd knew what mattered. He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life. It was his friend.

And Lloyd’s son is with us today. And he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today. That's the reason we are here today.

So this morning, I am proud to sign a law that will bring an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It is a law-- this law I’m about to sign will strengthen our national security and uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend.

No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military-- regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance-- because they happen to be gay. No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder, in order to serve the country that they love.

As Admiral Mike Mullen has said, “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.”