It is About Time for Senator John McCain to Eat His Words!

It was as obvious in 2006 as it is today that John McCain would be the driving force behind the fight to keep the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in place. It was in 2006 when Senator McCain concocted his first condition for repealing DADT when he stated "if the leadership of the military comes to me and says 'Senator we ought to change the policy' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to." OK, if that is all it took, then why in March 2010 did Senator McCain place another obstacle in the path of those fighting for equality when two of the highest ranking leaders of the military clearly stated that they supported DADT repeal?

This past February, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates stated "last week during the State of Union Address the President announced he would work with Congress this year to repeal the law known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell... I fully support the President's decision." Secretary Gates did not simply state he agrees with the President's decision, but that he 'fully supports' it. If that wasn't enough, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen was quoted "It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."

So one would think that Senator McCain would 'consider seriously changing' DADT after 'leadership of the military' who are 'the ones we give the responsibility to' blatantly stated 'we ought to change the policy'. Apparently what Senator McCain meant was that the Head of the Marine Corp is the 'leadership' he was referring to. In response to Admiral Mullen's and Secretary Gates' statements, Senator McCain stated that "Admiral Mullen was as quoted speaking personally. Just this week Commandant of the Marine Corp said that he did not want Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed. There are many in the military who do not want to." It was this same day that Senator McCain, in response to the conducting of a study to prove military support of DADT repeal, stated "If the result of that study is one that I can trust and believe in and is supported by our military leaders obviously I would give that the most serious consideration." It was at this moment that Senator McCain's true intentions started to show. With the use of the statement 'one that I can trust and believe in' provided him the room to maneuver if the study indeed did show support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. And oh did he take advantage of this room.

With the ever growing support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, on September 21, 2010 Senator McCain placed into motion his anti-DADT repeal strategy. According to him the Service Chiefs "have said they wanted a complete study about the effect on morale and battle readiness... The study that the Defense Department is conducting does not do that. The study assumes that repeal will take place. So for all intents and purposes there is no study as to the impact on battle effectiveness and moral... It would be a mistake to ignore the views of our troops and the military advice of the Service Chiefs."

I would like to know what study Senator McCain is basing his conclusion on that 'there are many in the military who do not want' DADT repealed. On November 11, survey results of the almost complete Pentagon study of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, due out on December 1st of this year, were leaked. Sources stated that "more than 70 percent of respondents (of 400,000 surveyed) to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent. The Survey results led the report's authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them."

To most people, it would seem that the report does focus on the effect of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and that the majority of those surveyed, those most directly affected by the repeal, will not be adversely affected.

These results obviously stroke fear into the heart of Senator McCain, because just last weekend he stated "we need a thorough and a completed study of the effects, not how to implement a repeal, but the effects on morale and battle effectiveness. That's what I want. And once we get this study we need to have hearings and we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it is the kind of study we wanted." This is obviously Senator McCain's last ploy to try and kill the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal knowing that if it does not occur by the time the new Congress is sworn in early January 2011, then the repeal will most likely not happen for years to come.

What I want is for you Senator McCain to eat your words and accept the fact that their is majority support in the military for Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal and just stop trying to block those of us fighting for equality because we will never stop until everyone no matter of race, religion, color, or sexual identity are treated with the same respect and given the same rights as all others!

Obama Mistakenly Puts Faith Back in the Senate to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Since Judge Virginia A. Phillips' injunction earlier this week requiring the immediate halt in the enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" there has been a lot of debate on whether the Obama administration should appeal the decision. The New York Times reported today that on Thursday the Justice Department filed a request for a stay on the judge's decision pending an appeal. They have asked her to respond by Monday "given the urgency and gravity of the issues".

The Justice department argued that the sudden restructuring of the policy would be "enormously disruptive and time-consuming, particularly at a time when this nation is involved in combat operations overseas." So in other words we can put our own troops' civil rights on hold while they put their lives on the line every day to fight for the rights of others? How does that make sense? It is true that putting an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will result in the necessary adjustment of other military policies, but it is a weak argument for allowing the continued violation of a group's civil rights. Abruptly ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will most likely result in our public servants having to work a little harder and our government having to spend a little more money in order to see that restructuring of all related policies is completed in a timely manner with the least disruption, but that is the small price the government must pay for years of discrimination of its lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members.

It is apparent that President Obama, who promised that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy "will end on (his) watch", wishes to have Congress make the final decision on the future of the policy. This is a scary thought, considering the strong possibility that Republicans, most of whom do not support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" appeal, will take back majority in the House and/or Senate after the midterm elections. Obama agreed with Christian Berle, deputy executive of Log Cabin Republicans, statement to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "to do what it takes in the lame duck session to end 'don't ask, don't tell' legislatively". I hope that Berle was right when he said that if Phillips suspends her ruling then "justice will be delayed, but it will not be denied". The lame duck session may be the last chance for many years to put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". 

Obama was quoted as saying "Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy. We have, I believe, enough votes in the Senate to go ahead and remove this constraint on me". In politics, believing that something may happen, is of no real value because politicians flop  back and forth on issues more than a fish out of water. If you really want the policy to end on your watch Obama, then do not appeal Judge Phillips' decision and allow the policy to meet its overdue demise. Why gamble on the fact that you may get enough Senate votes to end the ban yourself when it was the same Senate that put a stop to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" appeal less than one month ago.

So which one is it Obama? Do you want Congress to put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Do you want them to officially hand you a special invitation allowing you to put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Or do you want to forgo all uncertainties and allow "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to come to an end now with Judge Phillips decision? Quit talking around the issue and take action! I hope that Obama's promise to put and end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on his watch is not just another piece of the broken promises puzzle that he has become an expert at constructing.

Let's Not Forget About ENDA

With so many LGBT rights violations occurring on a daily basis, it is easy to overlook and forget about related issues that are not highlighted in the media. Just recently I was reminded of the fact that 29 states do not have laws to protect lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders from employment discrimination. In these states an individual can be fired, refused being hired or promoted, and harassed based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is an outrage that these practices are allowed to occur legally in a nation whose core values are supposedly based on equality and protection of the rights of its citizens.

In 1964, when LGBT rights were not yet at the forefront of politics, Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into federal law. This Act included Title VII, which prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, many organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign and the Task Force Action Fund, are fighting to see that the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed into federal law. ENDA would provide the LGBT community with similar employment discrimination protection that is provided to others by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

ENDA was first introduced in Congress in 1994, and has been introduced every year except during the 109th US Congress. Unfortunately it was in 1994 when the Republicans took majority of both the House and the Senate, and it was not until 2007 that the Democrats regained majority of both. So, it is not surprising that ENDA and many bills including acts for the equality of LGBT rights took a backseat for over 12 years. It seemed that in 2009 ENDA had a good chance of passing into federal law after two hearings for the bill were held, but eventually it got "put on the shelf" until a later date.

So what should we expect now? With the threat of the Republicans regaining majority in the House and Senate, is it inevitable that ENDA will be put on the back burner once again? At a time when the US unemployment rate continues to hover at the high rate of 9.5% and the economy is suffering from one of the worst recessions, it is of the utmost importance that Congress protect all individuals, including the LGBT community, from workplace discrimination. By not protecting lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders Congress is allowing employers looking to cut costs to easily target these groups without the threat of repercussions.

Is it not written in the Constitution of the United States of America that "nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws"? If the Federal government refuses to pass a law protecting the LGBT community from employment discrimination, then shouldn't the States take the responsibility upon themselves to ensure that all groups are provided 'equal protection of laws'? If an individual cannot be fired based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, isn't it unconstitutional to allow an individual to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Even one of the most famous quotes in the history of the United States afford the LGBT community equal rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

LIFE: the individual's right to life should be considered inviolable

- but yet the government's allowance, and even acceptance, of discrimination against the LGBT community has fueled the unfounded hate of the prejudice, leading to a high rate of murders targeting LGBT individuals. Included in these rates are the suicides of LGBT individuals that were pushed to the edge due to mental, physical, and emotional violent acts against them.

LIBERTY: the right to liberty is considered an unalterable aspect of the human condition. The right to liberty includes personal freedom: the realm in which the individual is free to act, to think and to believe; the right to seek employment wherever one pleases

- but yet employers are allowed to discriminate against anyone that is openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. How can a LGBT individual be free to act, to think, and to believe openly if they run the risk of possible economic hardship? How can the LGBT community share the same rights to seek employment wherever if their sexual orientation may put them at a severe disadvantage?

The Pursuit of Happiness: it is the right of citizens in the American constitutional democracy to attempt to attain - "pursue" - happiness in their own way, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

- but yet in the attempt for an LGBT individual to pursue a career that makes them happy, they run the risk of giving up the right to live openly.

Our founding fathers had it right when they included the above quote in the Declaration of Independence. So why is it that history has since been filled with groups having to continuously fight for equal rights? The answer is simple: Ignorance.

On the upside, as of September 2009,  87% of Fortune 500 companies had implemented non-discrimination policies that included protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 41% had policies that protected against discrimination based on gender identity.

You can take action now by contacting your representative via email or by calling. Let your representative know that you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 3017/S. 1584, and that he/she should support the passing of ENDA immediately. The U.S. Capitol switchboard is open 24 hours per day. The number is 202-224-3121. Give the operator your zip code and ask to be transferred to your representative.

 

Taking the Federal Defense of Marriage Act Down a Notch

Choosing between one's partner and one's home country is a problem that many same-sex couples face every day. There are nineteen nations that have immigration laws that allow the sponsorship of same-sex partners. Included on this list are Brazil, Israel, and South Africa (for a full list see below). So why is it that the United States, a country that is suppose to be a leader in equality, is not on that list? The answer lies in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal partnership between a man and a women. This act was signed into federal law by President Clinton in 1996.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act there are five major ways to attain legal residency in the United States, none of which include same-sex permanent partnerships. In terms of obtaining residency based on a couple's relationship, one must be a spouse of a US citizen to be eligible to apply. I want to emphasize the word spouse, because it is the definition of this word in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that destroys any possibility of binational same-sex couples to enjoy the same immigration eligibility rights as binational heterosexual couples. According to DOMA, "the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife". A binational heterosexual couple can legally marry and therefore be defined as spouses. A binational same-sex couple cannot.

So what is being done to drag our country into today's world where there are a growing number of people who openly define themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender? The list is continuously growing, but let's focus on taking DOMA down.

We are fighting the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in two major ways. First, we are fighting it head on with supporting state mandated legalized same-sex marriage. If we can succeed in overturning laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in a majority of states we will have the momentum needed to convince our senators and representatives to introduce and adopt a federal amendment that redefines marriage as the legal union between two consenting adults no matter the sex of either spouse. As of today there are five states, plus the District of Columbia, that legally recognize same-sex marriage.

Second, we are chipping away at the Federal Defense of Marriage Act with the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). UAFA is a United States bill, first introduced in 2000 by New York state Representative Jerrold Nadler, that would extend the rights of residency sponsorship to same-sex couples, defining them as permanent partners. With repeated failure to be adopted, the bill was introduced again in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.  Unrelenting in his pursuit to see the bill signed into law, in Representative Nadler's latest attempt to get UAFA passed, he co-sponsored the bill with Senator Patrick Leahy in 2009. Unfortunately, as of yet UAFA remains a stand alone and seems to be as close to getting signed into law as it was ten years ago.

In order for UAFA to have a chance to be signed into law it needs to be attached to a larger bill. Some debated that it should have been attached to the National Authorization Act, but I disagree. In my opinion not only would UAFA be defeated, but it would take Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal down with it. One highly controversial LGBT rights amendment is going to be hard enough to see passed but adding two to the mix is only a recipe for disaster in the form of filibusters and failure. Both UAFA and DADT repeal need to be adopted as soon as possible so that the LGBT community can begin to share the same rights as the rest of society, but we are fighting an uphill battle and need to be wise when choosing which ammunition to use and when to use it. Let's win DADT repeal first, which will weaken our opponent and then we can move forward with our next tactical move. The LGBT community deserves the same rights as everyone else and we will win this war against discrimination.

You can support the Uniting American Families Act by calling your senator or house representative.  Also voice your support by signing the ImmigrationEquality.com petition in support of UAFA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nineteen countries with immigration laws allowing same-sex partner sponsorship:

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

One Step Forward, One Step Back Towards Eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

2:15 pm on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 may prove to be a time stamp in history that our children and grandchildren will be learning about in school. It is the official time that voting begins to determine if the Senate will proceed with consideration of the National Authorization Act, the defense bill containing the amendment to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). To proceed 60 Senate votes in favor must be obtained. For those in support of eliminating the DADT policy this news may incite a sense of excitement, but one must be wary.

The decision was made after Senator John McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, objected to "non-national defense" debate by democratic senators. This maneuver resulted in Senator Harry Reid, a leader in the fight to repeal DADT, to file cloture. This brought the debate to an abrupt end. Although Senator John McCain recently stated he has no position on DADT, it is apparent that this was a sly maneuver to silence the voices of those trying to reinstate and uphold the rights of LGBTs in the United States. Let's not forget that earlier this year in the Republican primary, Senator McCain seemed steadfast in his opposition to DADT repeal, but now his tune has changed. Could this "change of heart" be a ploy to win votes in the general election against his democratic opponent? I'll let you be the judge. That being said, all Senators in favor of repeal should step lightly and not give the opposition any ammunition they can use to destroy DADT repeal. By speaking to amendments that don't fall under national defense, Senator Reid practically handed Senator McCain the special invitation to force early filing of cloture.

“I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ at this time, but I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law,” McCain said. “A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before moving forward.” (Washington Blade)

I agree with Senator McCain on the point that before taking legislative action one must do their due diligence, but not when it is so obvious that the law in affect is ridiculous and denies citizens equal rights. After reading Senator McCain's statement of why he doesn't "oppose or support the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'" I had to ask myself why is it that our government must  'evaluate the impact of repeal' on our military service men and women'? Let me set up a quick scenario in order to prove a point. Unfortunately in today's society many people still blame Islam for the horrible terrorist attacks that our country has suffered instead of blaming the very few radicals who use Islam as a shield to hide behind for their actions against humanity. I can guarantee that we can find military service men and women who hold this belief, but yet do we have to evaluate the impact of allowing Muslims to serve side by side with those who do not agree with their religion?  As far as I know, no we don't. Yes, their are Muslims "whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk", just as there are Christians who pose unacceptable risk. Yes there are homosexuals "whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk", just as there are heterosexuals who pose an unacceptable risk. It is not the religion nor the sexuality that make these people a risk. So how is it that we must 'evaluate the impact of repeal'? A homosexual or bisexual military service man or women is not a threat to those they serve with. Homosexuality and bisexuality is not a disease that is going to infect the military. Sexuality does not change trustworthiness in a combat zone. Sexuality does not make you who you are. The threat does not come from the homosexuals and bisexuals, but from the few ignorant military service men that are not accepting. If someone is to be discharged then it should be those suffering from this ignorance.

Only after a successful vote for cloture on Tuesday will opponents of  "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy have the opportunity to filibuster, strike repeal, or cripple the anti-DADT amendment. According to Senator Reid, debate over the defense bill and its attached amendments will likely continue until the Senate breaks for recess in early October. Whether this is a positive expectation or not is up for debate. It is all a game of balancing. On one hand this could give those in support of DADT repeal time to persuade swing senators to forgo support of filibusters, strikes to repeal, or actions to cripple the DADT repeal amendment. On the other hand, this could allow those in opposition to talk the amendment to death by stripping away any language that even resembles support for repeal. One way that we as citizens can help is to continue to contact our state Senators to let them know we support DADT repeal and to ask them to stand with Senator Harry Reid.

To find out more information on how to reach your senator visit the Human Rights Campaign website.

Standing Up To "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Seeing as this is my first post for The Monster Movement blog I feel that one of the most pressing issues in need of discussion is the fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". State Senators will be voting the week of September 20, 2010 and it is up to us to express our thoughts on the issue so we can win the majority in the Senate in order to end the oppressive "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an absurd and discriminating policy which prohibits lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members and applicants from disclosing their sexual orientation without suffering the consequences of discharge and denial of entrance into military service, respectively. This policy is mandated by Public Law 103-160 (Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, § 654), which was passed by Congress in 1993.

The most striking findings in support for the incorporation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into Public Law 103-160 are as follows:

- "Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good, order and discipline, and unit cohesion."

- "One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members."

- "The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

- "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

I completely agree with the first two findings, but am offended by the last. I can understand the concern that the military have with the possible problems that could arise from the fact that some service men and women do not understand or accept the lifestyles of homosexuals and bisexuals, but in my opinion this concern is rooted in ignorance and the belief that sexual orientation is a choice. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but their opinions should not result in the oppression of any one human being. I ask, instead of oppressing people for their sexuality, why not educate those that seem unwilling to accept the reality of the situation. This country likes to portray itself as a protector of not only its citizen's human rights, but also those of other countries. Is it not this excuse that many times is used for our presence in countries with oppressive governments? How can we justify having our military service personnel putting their lives in danger to protect the human rights of others when our own government blatantly denies the human rights of their own service men and women?

On May 27, 2010 the House of Representatives, in a vote of 234 to 194, adopted Murphy's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which could in turn lead to the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In order for consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act to proceed there must be at least 60 Senate votes in favor. Although this may prove to be a huge battle in the war against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", if 60 votes are achieved then cunning Senators in support of the policy can still fight to attach damaging amendments to the defense bill that could render Murphy's amendment irrelevant.

The repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be a major accomplishment in the LGBT fight for equal rights. Today it has been estimated that 73 percent of military personnel are accepting of lesbian and gays in the military. Hopefully this finding will come into play when the Senate votes next week, but time and again our country has seen laws passed that the majority of the effected community were opposed to. Let's hope this is not one of those instances.

"Discrimination is an assault on the very notion of human rights. Discrimination is the systematic denial of certain peoples' or groups' full human rights because of who they are or what they believe. It is all too easy to deny a person's human rights if you consider them as 'less than human'." (Amnesty International)

Do your part by calling your state Senator and ask him/her to vote in opposition of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The easiest way to reach your Senator is to call the 24 hour Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ten minutes of your time can make a huge difference in the life of the men and women who serve and protect our country.