Fierce, Advocate!

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but sometimes one suffices: NOPE. At least that's how The Advocate summarizes Obama's progress on promises to gay voters on the cover of their September issue. Harsh, but true, and clever, too; this pink-hued take on the "Hope" poster has our commander-in-chief not looking upward and inspirational, but sideways, like he's avoiding our eye-contact. Guilty much?

The question mark at the end of "Nope" softens the message a bit; at eight months in, Obama's betrayal is not yet a forgone conclusion. And although they call Obama "a player" for making promises he apparently had little intention of implementing as President, the article criticizes the gay community, too. The gay rights movement is described as "impotent", its leaders torn between "wanting equal rights and wanting to get invited to parties at the White House."

Look we've said it before, and we'll keep saying it until the 45th President is sworn in: we support this President, because we believe he has the best interests of all Americans in mind, but we expect some support in return. And enough with the "he's got a lot on his plate" arguments. Even the White House, on the eve of his 200-days-in-office mark, admits some of his challenges are getting a little easier. The battle for healthcare is a biggie, but the President can offer us more than mere tokens in the meantime. Congress is already moving on ENDAand DADT, with repealing DOMA not far behind...it remains to be seen what response or actions the White House will offer, despite Candidate Obama's pledges to implement all of these civil rights initiatives. We'll wait and see.

Someone with a Backbone

What do you get when you mix together:

- A Congressman
- An Iraq war vet
- A supporter of overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell
- A cute Irishman

Why, you get Congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional district (Bucks County). You also get a member of Congress with a backbone.

Second-term congressman Patrick Murphy, a member of the Armed Services Committee, plans to sponsor a bill that would overturn the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. Murphy was elected in 2006 after defeating Republican incumbent Michael Fitzpatrick; a major feat in itself with the 8th Congressional district being historically Republican. Oh, and he was the first Iraq vet ever elected to the Congress.

Why is this exciting?

First, President Obama has, on many occasions, stated that he would sign any bill into law that overturns DADT.

Second, support in Congress has been positive. Murphy and his supporters are securing new signatures daily.

Third, someone in Congress finally has the balls to get the ball rolling on this. As we've discussed on several occasions, DADT has been under enormous scrutiny and has been a major point of discussion.

Fourth, the bill is being sponsored by someone who was a soldier. Murphy knew soldiers dismissed under DADT; Murphy can speak first-hand on the implications of discharging skilled soldiers, and on how those in the trenches really feel about DADT. Murphy can speak first-hand on why this policy is stupid, and discriminatory.

Listen to Murphy yourself:

We'll be toasting to you this weekend Congressman Murphy!

Um, thanks?

We've already written a few posts about Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), but this latest development in the saga deserves some attention.

This CNN headline "Defense chief giving 'don't ask, don't tell' a closer look" makes it seem that perhaps, just perhaps, top Pentagon officials are finally starting to acknowledge how ridiculous this policy is. So, good news for gays?

Not really.

What Defense chief Robert Gates wants to do is make the policy more "humane" ... now, how does one make pure and simple discrimination more "humane?"

He is proposing that if a member of the military is outed due to "vengeance" or a "jilted lover" then the policy can be flexible. Here's the thing that drives Alex and me crazy: if the policy was enacted to protect those poor, innocent heterosexual soldiers from the discomfort of serving with us horrid gays, then why does it matter how the person was outed? They're still gay. The other soldiers still know it.

How about this for something more humane: drop the policy.

I still feel hope that the very fact that top officials are now talking about the policy will eventually lead to it's total repeal. Perhaps even during the Obama administration. As Alex posted the other day, Obama has already reinstated his plan to overturn it, after massive criticism from the gay community.

We'll see.

No More Promises

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a cocktail reception for gay leaders Monday, ostensibly to mark the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Observers know that this was really an attempt at damage control, after gay activists have criticized the President's lack of effort to fulfill campaign promises to end DADT, overturn DOMA, and pass ENDA. The President gave a speech where he reiterated those promises, receiving polite applause from those present. He went on to say that, by the time he's done, most of us "willl have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration." The crowd cheered.

WTF? No, seriously. He's not running for President anymore. He IS the President. While overturning DADT with the stroke of a pen might shock the system, he easily has the authority, the political capital, and the support of the public, to issue an executive order that would stop the discharges while the policy is under review. As for DOMA, he still says it's unfair, but why did his Justice Department defend the law recently, using language comparing us to incest and pedophilia that came straight from the far-right's playbook? As for how we'll feel when he's "done" fulfilling these promises: we'll believe it when we see it. Get back to us then if you want cheering from us.

Why are these champagne-sipping suck-ups cheering? We've mentioned before that it pains us to criticize this President; we know there are big problems facing the country that he's trying to deal with. Wars, the economy, healthcare; all impact far more people than the issues the gay community is focused on. Yet we still see these issues all intertwined; isn't discharging qualified soldiers in a time of war a matter of national security? Wouldn't granting marriage benefits to same-sex couples help insure vulnerable families? Shouldn't protecting a class of people from job discrimination be a priority in an economic downturn?

We're not cheering anything until this administration finally starts keeping its promises.

To hell with the suck-ups: we're takng our gripes straight to Washington for the National Equality March on October 11th. I doubt we'll be sipping cocktails in the East Room with Barack and Michelle, but we'll make sure they hear from us! Don't forget to register for the march, and we'll see you in DC!

Board Recommends Firing Gay Iraq Veteran

Lt. Dan Choi faced a panel of military officers for violating the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy yesterday, as we mentioned. The board recommended firing Choi, who plans to appeal. More than 150 letters of recommendation were presented to the board, and every witness, on both sides, testified that Choi was "an asset to the unit." Choi is a West Point graduate, Iraq War veteran and Arab linguist.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Translate

Army Lieutenant Dan Choi will be in military court today, facing trial for "moral and professional dereliction" under the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. In case you can't figure it out, his "moral and professional dereliction" is being openly gay.

Lieutenant Choi will likely be found guilty, and be dishonorably discharged from the United States Army. In other words, he will be fired for being gay.

So, who will the Army ... and ultimately we Americans ... be losing?

Lieut. Cho is a West Point graduate, an Iraq combat veteran, and fluent in Arabic. It's that last point that is quite critical, considering that the United States is currently involved in several wars in countries were Arabic is spoken.

To quote New Jersey Assemblyman Rush Holt from his May 8th piece, "Choi is an Arabic linguist--exactly the kind of critically-skilled soldier and leader his infantry platoon needs if they deploy to a country in which Arabic is the common language. Bluntly stated, his dismissal from the military--and the dismissal of other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) servicemembers--will put lives at risk."

DADT becomes even more disgusting when you look at the numbers. Since President Obama took office, 272 servicemembers have been discharged under DADT. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network highlights the statistics: 12,342 discharged between 1994 and 2007. For being gay. Men and women who are willing to die for this country. Over 50 of these Americans are fluent in Arabic, equating to a huge skill loss.

The good news is that DADT is getting more negative attention since President Obama took office. We already discussed our disappointment with President Obama on this matter, but it's refreshing to know that members of Congress are beginning to take the repeal of this policy to heart. Nearly one hundred members of congress have signed a letter in support of repealing the policy; polls show that the majority of Americans are fine with openly gay people serving for this country; polls and studies show that members of the military, including those of high rank, support the repealing of this policy.

There are moments in our history that we look back and laugh at ... take Prohibition. What a failed experiment! We feel certain that in a few years we, too, will look back at DADT and judge it for what it is: a ridiculous policy, that at its very root is unamerican and unconstitutional -- a failed experiment!

Congress, get busy. Now.

Before we lose more brave Americans like Lieut. Choi.

Promises, Promises.

Many of you have heard by now that President Obama was in Beverly Hills for a DNC fundraiser last week, and that he made reference to some protestors outside the event while addressing the audience. The day before, the Supreme Court of California upheld Proposition 8, the ballot measure to amend the state Constitution outlawing marriage for gay people. Demonstrations were well publicized in advance, but Obama claimed to not know what a protestor was referring to when he heard him say “Obama, keep your promise.” Opinions vary on whether the President was making light of people protesting Prop 8, or simply making a point that he’s juggling a lot of competing priorities right now. You can view his remarks and decide for yourself.

We’re still going to tell you what we think, though: we think it stinks. We think his attitude towards gay people is abysmal. Not just here, but since getting elected; he’s demonstrated a pattern of subtly dissing gay people and our concerns. During the campaign he promised to be a "fierce advocate" for gay equality. Many gay voters hoped his opposition to marriage for gay couples was a pragmatic concession for votes, and believed him when he said he favored civil unions that offered rights equal to marriage. He promised to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, because he didn't think laws should discriminate against gay people. He promised to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. We knew he would govern from the middle, but he seemed willing to address our concerns. We believed in him.

We still want to, but he's made that increasingly difficult since election night. He invited a homophobe to pray over his inauguration, someone who likens our relationship to incest and pedophilia. Maine and Vermont legalized same-sex marriage since he took office. The White House’s response? Silence. OK, we know the President doesn't like the idea of "marriage." But two more states now share his supposed vision for gay equality and non-discrimination. Doesn't that deserve a mention, a reaction, an acknowledgment? Iowa has also extended marriage equality to gay couples, and the President’s only reaction to that was a lame joke at the White House Correspondent’s dinner about going there with his chief advisor, David Axelrod, to “make it official.”

Cracks like that, and the one last week, really piss us off. Are we just a joke to him? It’s one thing to feel your President takes you for granted, but it’s another to feel that he’s openly mocking your concerns. Mr, President, you don’t know what promises those people are talking about? Here’s a refresher: you promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, end hiring discrimination against gay people, and recognize gay relationships at the federal level.

Look, we know Rome wasn’t built in a day. Obama’s only been in office 4 months and he’s got a lot to deal with; the economy is in crisis and we have some pretty enormous international concerns to deal with. But especially in light of those issues, wouldn’t now be a good time to ensure gay partners can share health benefits without an unfair tax burden? Is this really the time to still be discharging qualified military experts simply because they’re gay? Since we do have bigger fish to fry, why are these outmoded policies allowed to continue?

We still support Obama, but we’re growing concerned, and not just about lame jokes. We knew during the campaign that there were groups he had to reach out to in order to build a winning coalition, including some socially conservative factions. We were ok with that, as long as he kept the commitments he made to us during the campaign. We’re not sure he is, though.

First we heard repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might have to wait. Then, a month ago, it came out that the White House’s official website had watered down much of the language in its civil rights section pertaining to gay rights, including repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And still the discharges continue under this new administration.

We’re not naïve; we know that politicians will say certain things to get elected, then conveniently "forget" (or just change their tune) once they’re in office. We know that, even though polls are moving in the right direction, it’s still a political tight-rope act to implement policies of equality for gay people. We’re still bothered, though, by this nagging feeling that this administration doesn’t consider our concerns to be very important. We understand that the economy and the wars demand a great deal of attention, and that tackling big gay political issues might have to wait until after the mid-term elections, or even until a potential second term. It’s troubling, though, that he can’t use his politically deft speaking skills to reiterate his commitment to gay rights. It's troubling that he can't even speak of us at all as President, unless he's cracking a joke.

Candidate Obama promised to be a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” President Obama seems to have forgotten that promise, or assigned it such a low priority that it’s fallen completely off his radar. Gay issues may be a low priority for him, but not for us.

That's what really bugs us when we're told we have to wait for our rights, because there are too many other problems to deal with. We don't have the luxury of thinking these issues aren't important, because these issues are vitally important to us and people just like us. We've dealt with the hassle of being a committed, long-term family-unit without legal recognition; tax burdens that married couples don't bear, awkward conversations with medical people about our relationship and our wishes, that sort of thing. We have gay friends who have children, or an immigrant partner, or who own property together, all circumstances with unique issues that straight married couples are protected against automatically. There are gay people who fear discrimination on the job, and there's no federal law to protect them. There are gay men and women defending our country, at a time when we need all who are willing and able to serve, yet they can be dismissed for simply being who they are, and they too often are, even under this new President.

We haven't given up; we still love this President, and we want to see him succeed. But we intend to hold him accountable to the commitments he made. He campaigned on two promises in particular, two ideas that we, like many, truly believed in; change, and hope. He hasn't given us the change he promised us, yet. We still hope he will, though.

We'll be waiting.