OUR PRIDE! Our Independence? If Democrats want 2 find our votes in 2010 .... repeal DADT & DOMA now, or more QUEERS will become Greens & Libertarians!

*PLEASE NOTE THIS POST HAS A MAJOR DOMA & DADT UPDATE BELOW*

It is official! June was GLBT Pride Month!

It was declared first by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then sheepishly a few more hours after that by President Barack Hussein Obama. The Gay & Lesbian Community has finally received a boost toward equality because as of now thirteen states have considered and eight passed or decided to make marriage available to everyone. Nevada and Wisconsin are in the process of creating Domestic Partnerships and the approximately 18 thousand Same Sex Marriages in California performed during the 6 month window last year were also retained as valid. Ironically even Rhode Island is considering legislation to allow for Same Sex Divorce proceedings. But wait, before you hoist your lovers across the threshold, that initial euphoria has begun to ware off.

That hope was quashed recently by two drastic legal injunctions done by the Obama Justice Department in recent Supreme Court cases which, as some speculate, set our fight for equality back five to ten years, as well as negate legislative and judicial victories across the fifty states. This has brought the GLBT Community to honestly call into review all of the previous promises made and financial investment in not just political campaigns but also national queer lobbying organizations also. Soon after the threats of such boycotts, like the DNCs 10th Annual LGBT Leadership Council Dinner fundraiser in D.C. last week (which still raised 1 million dollars supposedly), the Obama Administration made several courtship moves to keep the GLBT Community from curtailing any future investments in his and others of his Party's campaigns, leading up to the 2010 federal mid term election cycle.

WHEN JOHNNY COMES MARCHING HOME WE WILL ALL FEEL GAY!

Previously on F6 we covered the story of Air Force Major Margaret Witt whose case in the Ninth Federal Circuit Court elevated homosexuals judicial scrutiny to a suspect classification, in need of greater legal protections, and raised the bar in 9 western states for Military discharges based on United States Code 10§654 to include that "the military can't automatically discharge all openly gay soldiers, but must prove in each case that dismissal would promote troop readiness or unit cohesion" in order to permit the constitutional discharge from Military service, based upon sexual orientation or association within a judicially protected minority group.

The Obama Administration refused to challenge the decision in the Witt case to the Supreme Court, which 1. allows the precedent while the case is brought back to lower courts to be retried; 2. allows for the Obama Administration and certain Lobby Groups to strategically delay a Judicial Review of DADT; 3. puts pressure on Congress to repeal DADT through HR1283 Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

However at the same time, "President Obama's Solicitor General, Elena Kagan," interjected in the 1st District case (formerly Cook v. Gates) of James Pietrangelo II whom along with 12 other plaintiffs originally challenged their separation from US Military under DADT, "filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging it not to hear Pietrangelo's appeal. But Kagan's brief said that the 1st Circuit "properly upheld" the statute." The 1st District ruled that: 1. DADT is an exercise of Congressional judgment in the area of military affairs and warranted enormous deference from the judicial branch; 2. laws based on animus Romer v. Evans (1996) couldnt be used against DADT because the policy, it said, was based on legitimate concerns, not animus. 3. the military should do more than prove homosexuality to warrant dismissal 4. ensuring national security outweighs arguments from 12 former military members who say their rights were ignored when they were dismissed for being gay. The Supreme Court declined to hear the Pietrangelo appeal on the 8th of June 2009. (Source: The Bay Area Reporter)

Rather than standing on the principles of equality now for our Troops, by not having the Witt case go before the Supreme Court, The Obama Administration also threw off the 1st District case from being reviewed, as this would have forced the Supreme Court not only to deliberate the role of scrutiny in the lower courts, but also deal at the same time with the lower courts interpretation of the Supreme Court's legal precedent in Lawrence v Texas (2003) which was cited in both the 1st District and 9th District case regarding the same issues under law. In other words, certain politicians in Congress and the Administration are both trying to make DADT a mid term election cycle victory and at the same time prevent the Courts from doing their job by using legal tactics which remove the exercise of scrutiny and review of these two distinct precedents, and possibly overturning DADT, before Democrats in Congress could claim it as a victory for equality coming up to the midterm elections cycle in 2010. In summary Gay and Lesbian Service Members are nothing more to the Democrats than bargaining chips in an upcoming election cycle and they are using every trick to keep us and them in line.

There is nothing "LEGITIMATE" about the arguments in support of DADT, and "CONCERNS" over UNIT COHESION or GENERAL ORDER and MORALE are simply defamatory! Every time someone utters the absolute fallacy that is the arguments for the restriction on integral and honest lives of Gay and Lesbian Service Members they disrespect the honour of all of our Service Members. The very nature of the arguments for exclusion in fact surmises that our men and women in uniform cant uphold themselves to the highest standards. That is a slap in the face to every person who has, does, and will, wear the uniform in service and sacrifice for our freedom and liberty!


There have also been three more recent public cases of career soldiers being affected by the illegal implementation of Dont Ask Dont Tell. On the 7th May 2009 (video above) we were introduced to 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao of the US Army,who originally told her story in an exclusive open letter to the American public in Audrey Magazine (pic to right open in new tab to enlarge) this past spring of life under DADT and received a personal hand written note from Barack Obama in return.

We also received followup on the story of Arabic Linguist and Environmental Engineer now an Infantry Platoon Leader, Lt. Dan Choi, who came out on national television back in March to announce the founding of of Knights Out for GLBT Graduates of the US Military Academy @ West Point. Lt. Dan Choi served in Iraq with the 10th Mountain Division for 15 months in 2006 and 2007, leading combat patrols through a region called the Triangle of Death and serving as a translator and language instructor and also helped rebuild schools and hospitals. In 2008, he left the Army and joined the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry of the New York National Guard, based in Manhattan. Lt. Choi will also be the first to be discharged out of New York (Source: Today In The Military). On the 19th of May we were also introduced to Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach (1st & 3rd videos below) an eighteen year veteran of the Air Force. who flew 88 combat missions with over 2100 flying hours and 1800 of those in combat. (Source: Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC News Politics News)

Even though he continued to patronize our struggle for equality, by signing a light list of rights for federal employees, allowing GLBT partners to use their married name on their US Passports, and throwing a party on Monday at the WHITEHOUSE on the 40th Anniversary of the STONEWALL RIOTS. He still refused to act as Commander In Chief, as 78 members of Congress have requested him, to also suspend by Executive Order the unconstitutional discrimination towards our men and women that serve in the United States Uniformed Services, from being able to do so openly, without fear, reprisal, or discharge, based upon whom they love and not the merit of their service and sacrifice. The Secretary of Homeland Security did just the same thing with another law in regard to Immigration and Naturalization policies regarding an early death otherwise known as the 'widows penalty' (Source: Dan Savage c/o SLOG).

However over the last week new information has come to light that the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, whom originally stated that DADT was "something to kick down the road for awhile (13 April 2009)", like a can of tuna in a game of street hockey, while traveling back from the US European Command Center in a recent statement Stars & Stripes, The Associated Press, and ABC News, all report that, under his direction, Pentagon lawyers and Administration officials are now looking at ways to add "flexible enforcement" to the existing law to accommodate when a Service Member is outed by a third party specifically citing a scenario of a jilted ex lover or someone with an axe to grind with the Service Member or their family, while the Congress takes its sweet ass time to repeal the 16 year old law, which it unconstitutionally created.

WE'RE GOING TO SEEK JUSTICE BUT WE CANT EVEN FIND MERCY!

The California Supreme Court in their ruling on the matters surrounding Proposition 8 in essence created three classes of people when it maintained the validity of the 18 thousand marriages performed during the six month window in 2008 when it was legal to do so. Besides the actions by the Obama Administration in the above cases of law you also have the Justice Department interjecting with another case brought by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer out of San Francisco, California, in regards towards the validity of Proposition 8 in California, which directly challenges the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA based on several Constitutional grounds and previous Court precedent.

After having the case pulled from the State Courts to the Federal Court The Justice Department, according to John Aravosis of The AMERICA Blog, in order to maintain the defense of the current law's discrimination towards homosexuals they compare homosexuals to pedophiles, citing several previous domestic and foreign cases of heterosexual incest and adults marrying children, in their 54 page brief (pdf)to the Court.

Why did the Obama Administration file the brief if they are opposed to the law?

At first Justice Department Spokesperson Tracy Schmaler said that, "... until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the Administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system." After an outcry and official boycott of two DNC Fundraisers one in Boston (with picture to left c/o Wicked Gay Blog) and the 10th Annual LGBT Leadership Council Dinner in the District of Columbia began a week went by and Robert Gibbs, The WHITEHOUSE Press Secretary stated to Jake Tapper during his Daily Briefing on the 17th of June:

"Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the President believes that that law should be repealed....Well, again, it's the President's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the President has stated and will work with Congress to change that law."

Then during a panel discussion 10 days later President Obama's Staff "Secretary Lisa Brown, expressed personal reservations about some of the language in the Justice Department brief against same-sex marriage" by deflecting the conversation "It was an awful lot better that the brief that was written in the Bush administration," and trying to one up the Obama brief by comparing it back to the original Bush era version of the brief. (Source: Jake Tapper, Political Punch, ABC News)

That was not even an apology! That was an excuse, and a bad one at that!

After the DOJ brief in both the San Francisco DOMA case and the several DADT cases, the GLBTIQAS Democrats have finally had enough, and called the National Democratic Committee and certain elected officials to task for their pandering to and blatant disregard for our struggle for equality. The call went out across the blogoshpere and twitaverse and exploded center stage with the National Democratic Committee getting spanked across sidewalks and caught fudging the numbers to make it look like they raised up to and possibly exceeding 1 million dollars during the fundraisers, when most of the main players for the event backed out in protest of the political pandering and judicial slams against Our Community.

Why shouldn't our protests affect the lives and fortunes of politicians? One of the strong components of Libertarian thought and philosophy is that an open, transparent government is automatically drawn down and simplified because everyone is living by the same rules and laws that are passed on to by We The People. We have allowed our Congress to become a bloated self sustaining source of power for the certain 538 people, that We keep electing, who keep making the same promises and never deliver nor honour the oath of office that they take. The one thing we do have the ability to control is financial investment in political campaigns and the other is voting out the people whom just maintain the status quo in governance rather than doing what is right, defending the Constitution by protecting individual and minority rights from the tyranny of the majority rule and religious thoughts or opinions on civil issues.

OUR QUEER PRIDE! OUR COUNTRY'S INDEPENDENCE?

As I have stated many times before, specifically in F6's original format back in June of 2005, GLBT PRIDE is not just about being proud of who we are or forcing everyone to accept our flamboyant displays of independence. OUR PRIDE is outlined by individual sense of dignity and our collective value as created equal in the image of God/dess and viewed as such under the law of this land too. OUR PRIDE is defined as a group formed not necessarily based on heredity or biological connections, similar to that of a pride of lions. When we shout and holler back about OUR PRIDE, the rally cry doesn't mean we are a bunch of Dancing Queens but that We ARE Family!

E Pluribus Unum, Out Of Many One, is also why OUR PRIDE is very much attached to our Country's Independence, and why we can also say We The People with the greatest of honour and demand at the same time that self evident truth declared so many years ago "That All Men Are Created Equal" be applied to us also. That is what also caused our Founders during that first Continental Congress to not just Declare Independence from the tyranny of an oppressive King and a clueless Parliament that refused to hear our forebearers redress of grievances. That is what makes the United States of America by definition a Republic and not a Democracy. That is what prevents the majority from eliminating the rights of the minority.

America, please pay attention to your own words:
Have We forgotten to swear to one another our lives, fortunes, and sacred honour?
Have We traded each for the sake of ego, greed, and power rather than brotherhood?
How long will We stop declaring our independence and let these truths be denied us?


WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND THE SIMULTANEOUS REPEAL OF DADT & DOMA

In all reality both pieces of legislation DADT & DOMA are tied at the hip they revolve around the same issues of law and the same religious prejudices within Civil Society, but they also revolve around similar issues within the Constitution too.

1. The Declaration of Independence
A. The DOI has the force of law today as it is included in the United States Code at the beginning under Organic Laws of the United States of America. As the Constitution falls within that same category, The DOI, if not equal to, is at least subordinate to, and applicable in, interpretation of, the Constitution by the Courts and implementation of law by Congress and enforcement of law by the Executive Branch.B. We either hold all 5 truths self evident or none. Either "all men are created equal" or they're not. Make up your mind America, which do We The People hold dear? You cannt declare Life and Liberty without the Pursuit of Happiness. Yet Religious nut jobs thinks that they can deny equality to 1 of every 6 to 10 by law.

2. The Constitution Of The United States of America
A. Obviously 1st is the Full Faith & Credit Clause of Article 4 section 1:
... shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
B. Article 6 paragraph 3 (specify last clause)
... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust.....
C. Amendment 14 (1868)
section 1 All persons born or naturalized...subject to the jurisdiction...are citizens of the United States....
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage and Military Service an Office of or part of the Public Trust?

I would argue that they are. When clergy perform the marriage ritual they evoke two authorities to solemnize the act of Sacred Union, that of Deity and the State: "By the power invested in me by the State of Indiana and (insert affiliation) I now declare you (plural) to be partners in life" As I stated here a month ago, originally Civil Unions were intentionally done to strip religious test out of marriage in this Country, by the Puritans. Some how between the Civil War and Reconstruction through World War II and Korea religious test found their way back into the public ambiguity of normal regulation, to preventing interracial marriages from happening, until 1967 when Mildred and Richard Loving took on the State of Virginia at the Supreme Court.
The United States legally established tax code which recognizes married partners as a joined legal entity, or juristic person, which is also dually licensed by the State, and established to promote Public Trust. The Partners whom having entered into such arrangements by swearing an oath of allegiance, thereby become Officers of a Public Trust, whom at a minimum receive benefits and special privileges for that status. What is the first thing that happens when one enlists in the United States Military? They swear an oath or affirm to Defend the Constitution! That also means that both married partners and military personnel gay or straight are Officers holding the Public Trust, and therefore immune from any religious test and that includes any moral and religious objections towards homosexuality in Civil Marriages and Military Services!This is not just an issue of equality but the relationship and proximity between our Men, our Money, and our Mouths!We The People still swore to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honour; but can we honestly say "We hold these truths to be self evident:", when we deny them to one out of six of our fellow Americans? The reason why Congress is STONEWALLING on DADT and DOMA is simple: ego, greed, and power. Lets remove them from office, starting in 2010!

But the conversation can not stop there. When DADT is repealed DOMA will fall right behind it because about most* of the Military (*CORRECTION: 1.2 million, of which, 42% are E-4s & 5s and 75% are E-3 through E-6 ranks respectfully) is made up of Enlisted men and women.The minute DADT is repealed or found unconstitutional, DOMA will have to go right along with it because you are going to see a lot of really hot men and women in uniform walk their lovers down the aisles, get married, and then turn around and apply for off base housing, which locally ranges between $678-1180 per month and is overseas approximately $2 thousand dollars a month in increased income, multiplied by an estimated 65 thousand soldiers at a minimum. Military housing whether off base or on base is down right horrible. Out of the 134 thousand housing units 43% are substandard and approximately 25% are 7 years over their viability or years of service standard. Not forgetting to mention the spouses and children' health benefits and counseling and education services and all the other expenses from living on or off a Military base can include. Let's also not forget to mention the cost to reenlist at least 30 percent of the 12,000 that have already been discharged under Dont Ask Dont Tell back into service and an additional 20-45 percent of those that previously didn't sign back on when their original contract ended, and approximately 40 percent of them will be married by now, therefore requiring off base or non barracks housing. (Source: DODs DUnderSec's Report on Military Housing)

I HAVE FOUR MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AMERICA:

Are We The People willing to put our money where our mouth and motives are, not in politicians hands? Are We The People willing to allow the men and women whom fight for our freedom be free to love?
Are We The People willing to let them live together with whom they choose and raise their children?Are We The People willing to deny them the very sacrifice they offered us freely, personal liberty?

F6 LINKS & RESOURCES

Normally there would be a full battery of links, resources, and recommendations for the readers and other works cited either stated and/or recapped here from throughout the post, However due to both the length and the detail of both this post and the amount and individual text of the works cited, I felt it necessary to create a separate post on F6's LINKS PAGE for this post alone. Please refer to it for some pretty cool finds over the last month that it has taken me to write this post out, please. Thank you for your consideration.

F6 EDITORIAL POLICY STATEMENTS F6 has several resources and commentaries regarding GAYS IN THE MILITARY. As an issue of editorial policy, F6 will challenge any assertion that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is either Constitutional or proper policy in our great country, the land of the free and the home of the brave, especially in a place where all men are created equal!

F6's EDITOR UPDATE: 08 JULY 09 US Representative PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania, a retired Army Captain, and West Point Professor, has taken pointe on HR1283, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act which will cause the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell by Congress. Please also note that Representative Murphy, four days after this post was originally published, specifically used (7:15 mark) my direct arguments above, that the Oath of Office that both Members of Congress and the Military both swear and affirm are equal and therefore our Troops have status as an Officer of or part of the Public Trust and therefore are free from any religious test or bias to hold such positions. Thank you Congress Member Murphy for picking up the ball for the final run across the field! (MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show via News Politics News)

F6's EDITOR FOLLOWUP: John P. Mortimer, Esq., a retired civil rights attorney, has a wonderful post that I was just referred to by RobMuch on You Tube, which also outlines similar ideas and develops deeper the arguments against The Defense Of Marriage Act, details stringently President Obama's hypocrisy and political pandering when dealing with the Gay and Lesbian Community's struggle for equality, and why he wants to keep DOMA out of the Court's proper place of review. I'm glad that he also chose to speak out about the disenfranchisement we have and are suffering at the whims of a religious bias in a secular nation.

F6 This post has been modified and revised in both content and format as certain multimedia was no longer unavailable from its original source it has been removed to allow the free flow of ideas and perceptions even if they are at this pointe historical and could be perceived by some to be archaic. Thank you for your continued patronage. (rvsd by editor 08Oct12)...

F6 UPDATE ON DADT: CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS & THE WITT CASE IS THREE MONTHS AWAY FROM THE SUPREME COURT & ROTC REVISITED BY IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS

EDITOR: The following articles are a follow up to this post earlier from this week on Monday in regards toward the current legal heresy and political future of Dont Ask Dont Tell.

In the previous post, on the 15th of December, I made specific commentary in reference to the President elect, Barack Hussein Obama, that:

He opposes DADT; but he first wants consensus from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?.....Personally, Mr. President Elect, it is not the Joint Chiefs you should be consulting; it is the thousands of gays and lesbians currently serving in silence with honour but yet also disgrace that you should be talking to.

On the same day, came this article, that quotes the Chairman of the Joint Chief's thoughts on DADT:

Challenges and Perhaps More Influence for Chairman of Joint Chiefs
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — As President-elect Barack Obama convened the first meeting of his national security advisers on Monday, there was just one person at the table whom Mr. Obama did not choose to have there: Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Mullen, who was selected by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for a two-year term, has been on the job for a year. Come January, he will face perhaps the biggest challenge of his career: pivoting from one commander in chief to another, in the middle of two wars. Friends describe him as an even-tempered, intellectually curious and politically astute presence who sees the world beyond the immediate battles of the Pentagon and the White House, all skills that they say will serve him well in the new administration.

“I’m encouraged by the fact that he said he’s going to listen to his military commanders,” Admiral Mullen said of Mr. Obama in a recent telephone interview, recounting a meeting he had with the president-elect on Nov. 21 in Chicago. The admiral declined to discuss the substance of the conversation other than to say “it was a good initial meeting — we talked about a lot of things.” He discounted any concern on the part of senior commanders that Mr. Obama had not served in the military. “By and large, I’ve found that those who really care about us and learn about us and are supportive of the military, having served in the military isn’t a requirement,” Admiral Mullen said.

In preparation for his new commander in chief, Admiral Mullen is overseeing the final stages of a comprehensive military strategy review of the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan — one of four such studies in the government — to guide Mr. Obama in his first days as president. More quietly, he has also had initial conversations with his top commanders about potential changes in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.

Mr. Obama has taken a strong stand against the law as a moral issue, although his team has signaled that he will not push for its repeal in the early months of his administration to avoid the kind of blowup that engulfed President Bill Clinton when he sought to lift an outright ban on gay men and lesbians in the military in his first days in office. (In a cautionary tale for Admiral Mullen, that 1993 storm raged in part because Gen. Colin L. Powell, who was the holdover chairman of the Joint Chiefs from the first Bush administration, publicly disagreed with what became a Clinton compromise solution of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”)

Fifteen years later, Mr. Obama is of the view that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is long out of date and that it is time for gay men and lesbians to serve openly. “The president-elect’s been pretty clear that he wants to address this issue,” Admiral Mullen said in the interview. “And so I am certainly mindful that at some point in time it could come.” A friend of Admiral Mullen said the admiral had begun to think about practical implications like housing, but Admiral Mullen said there had been no formal planning or task forces on the issue.

SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES [...abridged for brevity....]

Mr. Obama has repeatedly advocated repeal of military's policy for gays but is willing to "take his time to build consensus for a change" within the military. As I also stated in last Mondays post: "They now ask the Courts to push it through for a Constitutional showdown in the Supreme Court, so no one actually has to act with the Executive or Legislative powers, and get the bad rap amongst their religious conservative base, for turning it over themselves. It is almost like they want the Courts to do the dirty work for them."

The actual legal precedent from Major Margaret Witt's case, as previously updated last Monday, and originally covered in this forum back in May and again highlighted on F6 in mid July, is what will throw DADT into a Constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court very soon. Currently, as the standing precedent reads, as the 9th Circuit's decision found, that:"... the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling overturning state laws against gay sex established a new level of constitutional protection for gays and lesbians. Under that standard, the appeals court said, the military can't automatically discharge all openly gay soldiers, but must prove in each case that dismissal would promote troop readiness or unit cohesion...."

On Thursday, the 4th of December, the Ninth United States Circuit Court of Appeals "failed to achieve" the 14 of 27 votes needed to rehear the case from May, in front of an 11 judge panel.

The Air Force has 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court or allow the ruling to become binding on federal courts in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and eight other states. Even if the Bush administration appeals before leaving office, Obama could withdraw the appeal.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. In an April 2008 interview with the Advocate, a gay publication, Obama said there was "increasing recognition within the armed forces that this (policy) is a counterproductive strategy." He added that the nation is spending "large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need."

Obama would need congressional action to repeal the policy. But he could move in that direction on his own by deciding not to appeal the Ninth Circuit ruling, which could encourage challenges to "don't ask, don't tell" elsewhere. Other circuits have upheld the policy, but only one, the First Circuit in Boston, has done so since the 2003 Supreme Court ruling.

SOURCE: Court's ruling stands on 'don't ask' doubts
by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, 05 DEC 08

I will once again assert that, "the American people should be ashamed that their elected representatives are taking the easy road home and not standing up for our fundamental principles that, all men are created equal, (and for refusing to admit) how negligent Dont Ask Dont Tell really is in the lives of our Service Members and what a scorching wound it is to the honour of their sacrifice for our freedom and liberty."

Battle ahead over 'don't ask, don't tell' rule
By John Marelius | The Union Tribune of San Diego, CA | 07th December 2008
Staff writer Steve Liewer contributed to this report.

Still smarting from the unsuccessful same-sex marriage battle in California, some gay-rights activists are turning to another front: repealing the so-called “don't ask, don't tell” policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Last month, President-elect Barack Obama and nearly 30 new congressional Democrats were elected, giving activists hope that the 15-year-old policy can be overturned.

“I think the election of Barack Obama is a sea change in terms of moving the issue forward,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is dedicated to ending the policy and assisting military personnel affected by it. “I think 'don't ask, don't tell' can be repealed in the next Congress.” Democrat Obama, who repeatedly advocated ending the policy during his campaign, has also signaled that he intends to take his time to build consensus for a change within the military.

“I know that Barack Obama is committed to raising this issue,” Rep. Susan Davis told a recent fundraising reception for the legal defense network in Mission Hills. “I also know that he's got a very full plate.” Davis, a San Diego Democrat who chairs the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Armed Services Committee, is a strong advocate of the change. “There are many people, as you all know, who want to serve our country openly,” she said. “And I know from talking to people how difficult, how really painful that can be.”

Leaders of the effort to repeal “don't ask, don't tell” say they have no objections to Obama's deliberate approach. “We've had discussions with the Obama transition team, and I think we're all on the same page of not rushing..., but to do it right this time,” Sarvis said. Some analysts question whether Obama will want to expend political capital on the issue when the economy is in crisis and the United States is fighting two wars....

Legislation to repeal the policy will face stiff resistance from Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress. Congressman-elect Duncan D. Hunter, an El Cajon Republican and Marine Corps Reserve captain who served three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, strongly opposes changing the policy. “This thing is OK the way it is because I don't care what people do in their off time,” Hunter said. “What I care about is unit cohesion, especially men in very tight units, in very close quarters, in extremely difficult situations. They need to be comfortable around each other.” [....moved here for continuity....] Hunter maintained that repealing the policy would damage the institution in other ways. “The majority of the military is conservative and I think it would have an effect on recruitment if we change that policy,” he said. “If you have an 18-year-old guy from Alabama or Georgia sitting around the dinner table talking about joining the military, I think this issue would come up and it would have a deleterious effect on recruitment.”

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, is one of the most outspoken critics of any effort to alter the current policy. “This would totally change the culture of the military,” she said. “The new policy would be forced cohabitation with known homosexuals in all branches of the military, 24/7, with no option for dissent.....If that law is repealed, it would pretty well destroy the volunteer force,” Donnelly said. “These people are pushing an extremely radical agenda.” She also scoffed at the results of the poll below stating, "Civilians know about as much about that as they would if you asked them a question about issues currently being debated in the Canadian Parliament.”

I am going to address Duncan Hunter's and Elaine Donnelly's accusations directly in another post over the holidays and post it sometime next month, probably on the 29th of January, the 16th Anniversary of DADT, unless hopefully it gets repealed or overturned before then. For the last fifteen years ABC News and the Washington Post have conducted a poll on the current military policy mandates which order the discharge of gays and lesbians who engage in homosexual conduct or tell anybody about their sexual orientation. Data collected from 1993 and July of 2008, illustrates public attitudes are no longer in line to the public policy statements that DADT embodies. The poll posed two questions:

The first question was:Do you think that homosexuals who do not publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military?
In 1993, 63% said yes; in July 2008, 78% said yes.

The second question was: Do you think that homosexuals who do publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?”
In 1993, 44% said yes; in July 2008, 75% said yes.

Last, on this round of updates I hope, is some excerpts from a story from TIME Magazine regarding the Reserve Officers Training Corps relationship with IVY League Schools.

Why the Ivy League Is Rethinking ROTC
By Laura Fitzpatrick |TIME MAGAZINE | 18th December, 2008

.... With Millennials embracing national service in droves, more students around the country are questioning the Vietnam-era dogma that drew a bright line between the Peace Corps and the War Corps. Borrowing a page from the Greek historian Thucydides, who observed that "a nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors has its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools," many of today's students are pushing for Sparta to make more inroads into Athens. By uniting the best students and the best soldiers, advocates say, the schools and the military - and the nation - will grow stronger. The focus of the fight, on a growing number of campuses, is the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), which was kicked off most of the Ivy League campuses (or made an extracurricular activity) during the antiwar protests of the 1960s.

The Yale Political Union concluded this fall that the university ought to bring ROTC back to campus, a move some students said would help the school live up to its motto: "For God, For Country, and For Yale." While many of the objections are based on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays, op-eds and letters to the editor in the Yale Daily News - which endorsed the idea - argued that allowing ROTC back would encourage debate over the policy, rather than indicate an endorsement of it. At Harvard, meanwhile, where students can participate in the ROTC program at neighboring MIT, the undergraduate council in April passed a bill - jointly presented by the college Republicans and Democrats - called "Supporting ROTC," urging the school to list ROTC courses on students' transcripts and say that it "is proud of [students'] service to the nation" in its official description of ROTC. But nowhere is the debate more pronounced than at left-leaning Columbia University.

Ever since September, when both Presidential candidates came to the Manhattan campus and voiced their support for ROTC during the TIME-sponsored Service Nation Summit (John McCain's remarks incited boos while Barack Obama's elicited baffled silence), controversy over the issue has roiled the campus. Students at Columbia, which once bred more officers a year than the U.S. Naval Academy, even went so far as to conduct a poll at all four of the university's undergraduate colleges on whether to bring back the military officer training program that was booted from campus in 1969 at the height of anti-Vietnam furor. While students voted 54% to 46% to keep the ban in place, ROTC advocates say the tenor of the debate was more revealing than the ultimate result.

Take Learned Foote, for example, a sophomore who is gay but supports ROTC as a way to bridge the gap between civil and military service. "If you push [the military] off of campus and wait for others to do that work, I don't think that's as effective as saying, 'OK, we're going to put Columbia students who do have progressive values into the military and change it both from the inside and from the outside,'" he says. "'Don't ask, don't tell' is only a symptom of a larger issue, which is a lack of engagement with the military." .... In the more immediate term, engaging with the military could benefit both civilians and soldiers. For students, Foote contends, interacting with more future soldiers in classes and dining halls would discourage the view of the military as a monolith — or a political entity. "Having the students within the military at Columbia reminds us that something like the Iraq war was not done because of the military but because of the politicians we elect," he says.

ROTC supporters point to the debate at Columbia and its focus on "don't ask, don't tell" as a sign that students no longer have strong objections to the military more generally - and therefore would be receptive to inviting the program back if the policy were repealed, something more than 100 retired generals and admirals called for in November. For now, though, the debate at Columbia remains largely symbolic. University President Lee Bollinger has said he won't ask ROTC back until "don't ask, don't tell" is overturned. Moreover, even if Bollinger did let ROTC on campus, the Pentagon may not allocate funding to start training there, according to spokesperson Eileen Lainez. Students who are so inclined can continue to participate in Army ROTC and Air Force ROTC at nearby colleges.

The lives and honour of countless GLBT Service Members in the United States Armed Forces and their families are waiting with anticipation for the day they can live the freedoms they have fought for around the world and defended here at home! Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not right, moral, honest, nor legal! It is time for this heresy of American Law to come to an end!

EDITOR'S NOTES:

• F6 has and always will hold the men and women of this Country's Uniformed Services in the highest esteem possible and will at all times give them the honor and respect above and beyond that which they inheritable deserve from each citizen.
  
• F6 as an issue of editorial policy will challenge any assertion that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is either Constitutional or proper policy in our great Country, especially in a place where all men are created equal!
  
• F6 has several resources and commentaries regarding GAYS IN THE MILITARY for your perusal.
  

F6 UPDATE: DONT ASK DONT TELL LEGAL CASES AND THE FUTURE POLICY & Should Gays Worry About Their Houses Being Rented Out For Domestic Security Forces?

EDITOR: If you have no idea what the second part of this title is in reference towards go to this post regarding the 217th anniversary of The Bill Of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to The Constitution of These United States of America, on the Libertarian Party of Allen County's blog at some pointe to get a refresher in history and get caught up the latest news at the bottom.

We are first going to start with the update of a story previously covered on F6 under Gays In The Military. We first discussed Air Force Major Margaret Witt's case on Memorial Day (top story) and highlighted it again in the middle of July (fourth story).

Lesbian major’s DADT lawsuit moves forward
By 365gay Newscenter Staff | 05 DEC 2008

(Spokane, Washington) A full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled a legal challenge to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” - the ban on gays serving openly in the military - can proceed. The Bush administration had asked the court to reverse a May ruling by a three judge panel that overturned a lower court decision to toss out the suit. In upholding the decision by the panel, the 9th Circuit said the case should be considered on the basis of the 2003 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a Texas criminal statute penalizing homosexual conduct. The Supreme Court in that decision said that laws against sodomy were an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy. The Air Force and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked the full 9th Circuit to hear the issue. In a 4-3 decision, the court let stand the panel decision to allow Maj. Margaret Witt’s case to proceed.

Witt joined the Air Force in 1986. She served in the Persian Gulf and in 2003 was awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal for her action in saving the life of a Department of Defense employee who had collapsed aboard a government-chartered flight from Bahrain. In 1993, she was selected to be the “poster child” for the Air Force Nurse Corps recruitment flyer. She then was assigned as a flight nurse and operating room nurse at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, Washington. But after commanders received an anonymous tip in 2004 that she is a lesbian and in a long-term relationship, the military began an investigation that led to her discharge under the military’s ban on gays serving openly. In November 2004, Major Witt was placed on unpaid leave and told she could no longer participate in any military duties, pending formal separation proceedings. In March 2006, the Air Force informed Major Witt that she was being administratively discharged on grounds of homosexual conduct.

In upholding Witt’s lawsuit the 9th Circuit did not strike down the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. But the court said the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military’s goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion. The military can now appeal the 9th Circuit ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is not all bad news, the Administration is starting to actually realize how stupid DADT is. Their game plan is actually quite cunning. They now ask the Courts to push it through for a Constitutional showdown in the Supreme Court, so no one actually has to act with the Executive or Legislative powers, and get the bad rap amongst their religious conservative base, for turning it over themselves. It is almost like they want the Courts to do the dirty work for them. Of course then, the same politicians who refuse to take a stand, can use it as a wedge issue later and assert that the bad Justices are legislating from the bench.

The American people should be ashamed that their elected representatives are taking the easy road home and not standing up for our fundamental principles that, all men are created equal. In other words, they are playing the game so tight, that Democratic Party Bosses in Chicago, Illinois would be impressed with the sly play, if they weren't to busy trying to cover their own corruption and lies back under the carpet. Now for the rest of the stories politically and socially speaking in reference to how negligent Dont Ask Dont Tell really is in the lives of our Service Members and what a scorching wound it is to the honour of their sacrifice for our freedom and liberty.

Is Obama caving on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
By Jennifer Vanasco, Editor in Chief, 365gay.com | 21 NOV 08

This is what I was worried about. According to the Washington Times, Obama’s team is saying that even ASKING for a repeal of the ban on open gays in the military may not happen until 2010. First, he wants to build consensus. Fair enough. But it seems to me that consensus is already built - or at least as much as it’s going to be. Earlier this week, 104 retired generals and admirals called for DADT’s repeal. A former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke out against DADT in 2007. So did a former Secretary of Defense. 143 members of the House have co-sponsored a bill to overturn the policy; a bill approved by the House Committee on Armed Services.

We know the US military needs more soldiers to fight the two wars we are engaged in - last year alone, 627 servicemembers were dismissed under the DADT. The military needs servicemembers and gays want to serve. You know what else? DADT is expensive. In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission concluded that so far, it has cost the government (meaning, us, the taxpayers) $363 million. Don’t Ask is a failed policy. The only people who don’t think so are homophobes. I understand what Obama is trying to do here. He’s trying to avoid a Clintonesque debacle like the one that gave us DADT in the first place. But of everything we’re fighting for, DADT seems like it’s the least controversial and would make the most sense. If this isn’t even being looked at until 2010, then when is he going to start making good on his campaign promise of federal civil unions? When (if) he’s re-elected?

I’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t Obama name a gay person - like Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, say - as Secretary of Defense? That would signal real change - and give gays and lesbians real hope.

He opposes DADT; but he first wants consensus from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

(continued from first article).... The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military’s ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy - ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay. Last month more than 100 retired generals and admirals issued a statement calling for repeal of the ban.

Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was taken up in committee this year for the first time, but did not make it to a vote. The bill is expected to be reintroduced in the upcoming session of Congress. Under DADT, two people every day are dropped from the military for being gay. In the 15 years that DADT has been in force, more than 10,000 personnel have been discharged as a result of the policy, including 800 with skills deemed ‘mission critical,’ such as pilots, combat engineers and linguists. The number of gay men and lesbians turned away by military recruiters is unknown. A study conducted last year for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network concluded that the U.S. military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if gays and lesbians in the military were able to be open about their sexual orientation.

Personally, Mr. President Elect, it is not the Joint Chiefs you should be consulting; it is the thousands of gays and lesbians currently serving in silence with honour but yet also disgrace that you should be talking to.

But in order for that to happen, you would have to suspend enforcement of DADT, give them immunity for them to be able to come forward, while you question or discern the "honorable course of action". Continuing to ask them to live a life of honour and truth, and yet withhold the very nature of who they are, is a disgrace to everything this Country stands for and was founded on.

It is really sad when the lyrics of Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas" can get changed to something people look forward to hearing. What GLBT Service Members desire is simple, "to just say hello to you, my love" and their families too, with the exact sentiment surrounding the idea that, "our government wont let me even tell you goodbye when I ship off to sea, or inform you when I die for your freedom", and eventual peace.

In the article below, Lee Quillian, now retired from the Navy, remembers one holiday season when she was serving on a ship in the Middle East.

Gay soldiers (not) home for Christmas
By Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief, 365gay.com | 11 DEC 08

"They risk outing their partner."

All the other sailors were going to a special room to film video messages to their sweethearts. But not Quillian. She didn’t record a message. She couldn’t. Because her partner is a woman. Quillian and her partner Jenny Kopsstein are just two of the thousands of gay couples affected by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The policy, which forbids disclosure of a gay identity while serving in the military, is challenging under the best of circumstances – but during the holidays it becomes particularly dire.

“The holidays bring up memories, expectations,” said Trey Malicoat, a therapist who has worked with servicemembers. “There are more parties, more activities, there’s a financial drain. For gay soldiers, there’s the added burden of not being able to talk about home, about where he or she would like to be, about the person who has the most significance in his or her life.” Malicoat says that this added burden can bring anxiety, depression and an increased sense of isolation to servicemembers who already feel isolated. This is true even for military members who are serving in the U.S. and can go home at the end of the day. “Even while I’m here stateside at lunch, people are talking about what presents they’re going to buy their wife or girlfriend – I’m part of the group but I can’t be part of the discussion,” said Elizabeth, an officer in the Army.

Elizabeth married her partner in Massachusetts a year ago (they’ve been together seven years), but they still need to keep their relationship a secret. “It’s very difficult to abide by the policy and not talk about what’s really going on in your life and at the same time try to connect with your fellow servicemembers. And you are supposed to connect pretty deeply, because we are supposed to put our lives on the line for each other,” Elizabeth said. She added that she thinks that the secrecy does a disservice to straight military members, “99 percent of whom would just roll with it and be OK.”

Extraordinary precautions

Servicemembers say that they have to take the most extraordinary precautions for the most ordinary activities. They need to watch everything they say, using gender neutral pronouns or making up a significant other of the opposite gender. They need to hide who sent them care packages, who sent them a letter, who they write to themselves. If they’re deployed in a foreign country, their partners need to limit calls to the shared phone, lest others on the base (who usually answer that phone) begin to suspect something is up. Quillian, who was on a ship, couldn’t call Kopsstein at all – ship calls are all monitored by Navy personnel.

“We definitely had less contact than a straight couple would have,” Quillian said. “Our goodbyes had to take place at home. And Jenny couldn’t be on a pier waiting for me during homecomings, even though every other sailor was kissing and hugging.” It’s tough on the person at home, too. The military has an excellent support system for family members left behind that includes counseling, a newsletter updating families on unit activities, and support groups and networks.

But gay partners of servicemembers can’t take advantage of any of that. If they do, they risk outing their partner – who under the policy will then lose their job. “Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, you go years and years having to hide who you are,” said Quillian’s partner Kopsstein, who herself was in the military before she told her commander that she was a lesbian. “The policy affects how you relate to people, your friendships, your work relationships, everything.” “I waste a lot of time protecting my conversations in ways I shouldn’t have to,” Elizabeth said. “I think it’s very tiring. I’m tired of it. I’m a good soldier and a good citizen. It’s ridiculous that I have to hide my real life.”

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not right, moral, honest, nor legal! It is time for this heresy of American Law to come to an end!

EDITOR'S NOTES:

• F6 has and always will hold the men and women of this Country's Uniformed Services in the highest esteem possible and will at all times give them the honor and respect above and beyond that which they inheritable deserve from each citizen.
  
• F6 as an issue of editorial policy will challenge any assertion that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is either Constitutional or proper policy in our great Country, especially in a place where all men are created equal!
  
• F6 has several resources and commentaries regarding GAYS IN THE MILITARY for your perusal.