The most frustrating part of the fight for LGBT rights is that many people, both inside and outside the community, view it as a grab bag of issues. It isn’t. It’s One Issue with many moving parts, and it really doesn’t matter to me where we succeed first. The work will continue until the One Issue is completed, because in truth the One Issue is more than the sum of its parts.

There’s a reason LGBT people suffer depression and anxiety so much more often than straight people do. There’s a reason we’re twice as likely to suffer PTSD. There’s a reason our youth are three to seven times (depending on environment) more likely to die by suicide.

It’s no coincidence that our statistical 5-10% of the nation’s youth make up 20-40% of all homeless youth, that LGBT homeless youth are 56% more likely to abuse alcohol than straight homeless youth and 76% more likely to have been sexually assaulted.

Solving the One Issue has the side effect of bringing people back from the edge. That’s the real reason the fight is so important. It’s not about me getting married (I won’t) or joining the Marines (it is to laugh). It isn’t about me not getting a job because I’m a fag or being politely turned down for a loan or being turned away from a restaurant or being told my blood is tainted.

It’s about people knowing that they exist, that their lives are real and important, that their government won’t assault them, and that it actually considers them in the same way it considers their parents and siblings and friends. That One Issue is the keystone to all the others.

The U.S. government is, right now, today, harming us with its codified discrimination because people in the majority approve of it. I want that harm to cease, quite selfishly, because I’m one of those people being harmed and I know a lot of other people who are being harmed. And though it irks me to no end, I suppose I shouldn’t think too poorly of people, even those who think they’re our allies, for not wanting it to change badly enough because of their own selfishness.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I’m going to shut up and bow my head until that far off, imaginary, never-to-come day when people in the majority have everything they want and decide it’s okay to finally make the government stop harming people.

No sir.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach

From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster LLP (MoFo) filed a request for a temporary restraining order on behalf of their client, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, seeking to block the Air Force from discharging him under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the discriminatory law barring gay and lesbian service members from serving openly and honestly. The filing in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, seeks a court order preventing the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, arguing that the government cannot establish that his continued service on active duty hinders “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.”

The General Counsel’s Office to the Secretary of the Air Force confirmed to MoFo and SLDN that the Air Force Personnel Board recently reviewed Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s case and has sent a recommendation to Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley’s designee. According to Air Force regulations, had the Board recommended to retain Lt. Col. Fehrenbach no further action would have been required by the Secretary or his designee (AFI 36-3206 Chapter 6.10 and Chapter 6.10.1). Although SLDN and MoFo understand the Secretary has delegated his authority to act on the Board’s recommendation, Secretary Donley has the power to step in and retain Lt. Col. Fehrenbach. Without action by the Secretary, the Board’s recommendation is expected to stand and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach could be discharged within days.

A request for a temporary restraining order asks the court to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff and preserve the status quo until a more complete hearing can be held on the merits of the case. If the court grants the request, the Air Force will be prevented from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach until a full hearing can be scheduled. The Fehrenbach case is among the first to challenge a discharge under DADT by applying the so-called Witt standard. In the case of Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – which governs the District of Idaho – held that discharging a service member violates the Constitution unless: (1) the government advances “an important governmental interest;” (2) the government shows the intrusion “upon the personal and private li[fe]” of a service member “significantly furthers that interest;” and (3) the government shows the intrusion is “necessary to further that interest.”

Fehrenbach is a many-times decorated 19-year veteran of the US Air Force, and on a personal note, a native of Dayton, Ohio, just a few miles from where I live. Fehrenbach has received nine commendations for 88 missions over the last two decades, including being hand picked to guard the skies over Washington, DC on September 11, 2001.

A statement tonight from Lt. Col. Fehrenbach:

“I have been waiting more than two years for the Air Force to do the right thing by letting me continue to proudly serve my country. To say that I’m disappointed with where things stand would be a monumental understatement — I am crushed. I have given my entire adult life to the Air Force that I love. I have deployed six times and risked my life for my country. In the two years that I’ve been sitting at my desk rather than inside my jet, I’ve offered to deploy numerous times. I’m ready, willing, and able to deploy tomorrow, but I’m barred from deployment, because of this unjust, discriminatory law. Meanwhile, moms and dads, sons and daughters, and my friends go back for the third, fourth, fifth deployments. While our country is engaged in two wars, my service is needed now more than ever.”

I don’t know if it should, but maybe money will give people a reason to give a damn. It is now less than a year before Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s 20 year retirement. If discharged under DADT, he will lose $46,000 every year for the rest of his life. If he gets a less-than-honorable discharge, which by custom he will because he’s fought his discharge, he will lose an additional $80,000 in separation pay.

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show tonight. Video of that interview, as well as the rest of the night’s DADT show, is embedded below.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Lt. Choi appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show last night to talk about his firing.

I’m not going to lie; I cried at the end of the interview as these two heroes of the LGBT community paid respect to each other. I know some in the community are frustrated with Rachel’s less aggressive stance, but as Dan said, she has been on this story for a long time, always willing to bring the unvarnished truth about DADT to millions of homes. Rachel Maddow has talked more about the absurdity of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the last 18 months than all the rest of cable news combined.

Here’s the important line from the letter that Lt. Choi got on Thursday. This is the unmitigated bigotry that the US government pretends is a respectful end to a soldier’s career after serving his country for over a decade.

Based on the approved board findings that 1LT Choi did publicly admit…that he is a homosexual…I direct 1LT Choi be discharge (sic) from the New York Army National Guard with an Honorable characterization of service.

PATRICK A. MURPHY
Brigadier General, NYARNG
The Adjutant General

But as Lt. Choi said, this is not the end. His voice will continue to be heard as he holds Congress’ and President Obama’s feet to the fire, telling them in no uncertain terms that their job is to do the right thing.

Whatever you do, don't hide.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

But at the last minute, the federal government dropped the case. GetEqual, the group that staged the protest, released a statement later in the day (excerpted):

Apparently, Prosecutor Christine Chang was unaware of the government’s decision as she stated, “I was ready,” and wasn’t able to explain the last-minute decision not to prosecute.

“Today, truth was the victor against a demeaning, discriminatory law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Lt. Dan Choi. “We won’t stop pressing for repeal and pressuring those standing in the way until the day comes when not one more gay or lesbian servicemember is fired. And, as of today, the President refuses to tell us when that day will actually come.”

“It is clear that the government was embarrassed and we were prepared to make them defend this antiquated and homophobic law. The government is afraid of having to defend this issue,” said Cpt. James Pietrangelo II. “The subpoena was an embarrassment for them, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an embarrassment for them and, after three months of discovery and preparation, the government dropped the case because they know it’s an embarrassment.”

“Civil disobedience won today,” said Robin McGehee, co-founder and co-director of GetEQUAL. “We’re thrilled today that Dan and Jim’s actions have been validated and that non-violent civil disobedience has been proven again to be effective in combating prejudice. We are proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Dan, Jim and other LGBT active-duty servicemembers who are taking action to end this discriminatory policy.”

Choi and Pietrangelo with their attorneys

So what happened? President Obama has had plenty of embarrassments with LGBT issues lately, and perhaps someone decided this was one too many.

My guess is that the Administration is finally beginning to understand that the strategy of putting off civil rights issues until 2013 has backfired and that Democrats entering midterm elections have a huge credibility problem with the LGBT community.

Remember, DADT is still the law and prosecutions are actively being pursued. Lesbian and gay firings are still happening at a rate of around two firings a day.

Something tells me Choi and Pietrangelo (and the good folks at GetEqual) will keep on making a ruckus until we’re all allowed to serve without fear.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Mr. Woodhouse,

In response to your request for a small donation, I must unfortunately reiterate what so many others have said in the last few months. The Democratic party will not see one penny from my pocket until and unless substantial gains are made in the field of LGBT rights.

In 2008, the LGBT community helped give you the White House, the House of Representatives, and a super-majority in the Senate. What we’ve discovered is that there is little difference between a Democratic-led government and the Republican-led government of five years ago. Instead of taking a clear and decisive pro-civil rights stance, you thanked us by running the other way and choosing ***anything*** but LGBT civil rights.

• You punted repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, with a compromise that doesn’t actually repeal anything, has yet to be voted on in the Senate or signed by the President, and reportedly is being considered for veto by President Obama.
• You’ve put off the Employment Non-Discrimination Act until it’s logistically unlikely this year, with Speaker Pelosi characterizing the bill as “controversial” rather than rallying Democrats around this clear issue of civil rights.
• Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t even being considered, no matter how many times President Obama says he’s “urged” Congress to do so.
• Ending the discriminatory anti-gay blood donation ban has been discussed and rejected with no real push from the DNC to follow the science and penalize risky sex rather than responsible gay men in monogamous relationships for thirty years.
• Bids to institute state-wide marriage equality have failed in part because of the lack of leadership and funding from the DNC, most notably in Maine last year.
• Even a bill to offer safety to all school children has failed to find congressional footing because members of Congress get squeamish at the bill’s specific mention of LGBT kids who are many times more likely to be bullied, depressed, isolated, and suicidal than their straight peers.

So no. You will not get my money, you will not get my time, you will not get my voice, and you will not get my vote until you show me that you consider my rights as important as yours.

Candidates who have shown leadership for these completely reasonable LGBT demands retain my support and vote, but until I see substantial leadership and not excuses from the national party, my response remains the same:

NOT. ONE. CENT.

Cordially,

Matthew D. Algren

For far too long, Democrats have viewed LGBT people as nothing more than a committed source of funding and a reliable voting bloc. It’s time to teach them that we’re more than that.

Take the pledge.

Here’s why.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In the House, the rhetoric was thick. Here, for your edification, is an only slightly biased Point/Counterpoint from the floor.

Point: By Representatives Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Mike Pence (R-IN), Todd Akin (R-MO), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Buck McKeon (R-CA).

Counterpoint: By House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

To be clear: The House did not vote to repeal DADT tonight. Neither did the SASC. In both cases they voted to add an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that creates a structure for possible, potential, if-a-bunch-of-other-conditions-are-met repeal of DADT.

Even if we get over all those hurdles and tick all those boxes, even if/when DADT is repealed, lesbian and gay soldiers will not be permitted to serve openly in the military. Rather, we’ll return to 1993′s status quo where military policy will not permit lesbians and gay men to serve openly.

There is hope–I think quite reasonable hope–that President Obama will take care of that as soon as Congress’s procedure is completed, but we need to stay on message. This fight won’t be won until LGB people are permitted to serve with honesty and integrity, just as their straight counterparts are required to do.

In other words, it’s not Woo-Hoo time. Cork the champagne, put away the noise makers, and tear down the “Mission Accomplished” banner. We have at least 8-12 months of actively fighting Republican attempts to keep discrimination alive (including a vote by the full Senate in June) before we can declare victory.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Sgt. Anthony Boustos, one subject of the photobook entitled “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Volume I”, took the opportunity to come out of the closet. With six months left in his enlistment, the Army medic (previously known as “Matt” of Lubbock, Texas) wanted to explain why he would not be reenlisting.

Sgt. Boustros’ coming out (congratulations!) comes in an important week for DADT repeal. This is a loooooong post, but we have a lot of important ground to cover. Stay with me!

On Monday morning, someone at the White House noticed that DADT repeal was going to be pushed whether they liked it or not, and got to work crafting what is, as Jeremy Hooper at Good As You points out, best described as a compromise of a compromise.

Compromise #1: The LGBT community wants repeal and open service now, and the White House offered a year-long study on implementation with the possibility of open service voted on next year.

Compromise #2: Congress (after a little prodding) wants a vote in 2010, so now the White House is giving support to a vote this week with implementation after several conditions are met at a later, unspecified date.

photo by Jeff Sheng

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin rooted through the proposed amendment yesterday and learned that indeed it does not directly permit gays to serve openly in the military. The amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill begins with several steps:

1. The implementation study already underway must be completed and turned in to Defense Secretary.
2. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must tell Congress that the Defense Department has prepared regulations for implementation.
3. They must also assure Congress that the Military-Industrial Complex won’t go blooey if lesbian and gay soldiers are allowed to talk about their spouses and kids.

photo by Jeff Sheng

At that point, DADT will officially be repealed. BUT. The amendment does not include a provision requiring the government to allow lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly. Rather, by only striking DADT, the policy will simply be moved from the legislative branch back to the executive branch, where it was until DADT was passed in 1993.

Next the commanders of the military will presumably implement a regulation permitting lesbians and gays to serve openly. Given how deeply anti-gay animus continues to be with older commissioned officers, that’s not a presumption I’m terribly comfortable making.

The best-case scenerio, of course, is that once the ball is squarely in his court, President Obama will issue an Executive Order requiring the military to allow lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly using the regulations that were prepared in Step 2. This would to a certain extent mirror President Truman’s order to integrate African Americans into the military with 1948′s Executive Order 9981. I just hope the President has enough foresight to go a step further than Truman and include a deadline. We don’t want it to take another military disaster to force integration.

photo by Jeff Sheng

Remember, it’s important that the amendment be placed by the Senate Armed Services Committee before the Defense Authorization Bill goes to the full Senate. This lowers the bar considerably, since it would then take 60 votes (assuming filibuster) to remove DADT repeal, a threshold that the Senate would be much less likely to meet. The committee vote and the full Senate vote are expected this week. Word from the House of Representatives is that they indeed have the votes to pass repeal as early as next week.

But before we break out the champagne and celebrate a major victory, it’s important to remember that this compromise, if passed, is only a first step. We aren’t there yet, and as Lt. Choi said in a video released by GetEqual last night, we can’t celebrate until and unless lesbian and gay servicemembers can serve openly without fear of losing their jobs.

As so many have said, the best chance for DADT repeal is inclusion in the Defense bill. No action this year would mean that DADT probably wouldn’t be repealed for another generation, and this compromise would remove that concern, or at least decrease it. Let’s face it, a watered down and incomplete version of an earlier watered down and incomplete version with several strings attached and no deadline may be the best we can get.

This right here is why I hate politics.

I will say this, though. If this compromise passes and President Obama kicks it down the road again, there won’t be enough jails to house all the homos lined up on the White House fence.

And yes, I’m volunteering to be the first.

(All photos by Jeff Sheng from his photobook “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Volume I”. Buy it here. Hopefully we’ll see their faces in Volume II.)

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Despite indications (not promises, just indications) to the contrary, President Obama will not push Congress to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell until after the Pentagon’s study on how it would enact repeal is finished. That study is not due until after mid-term elections this November, and it’s important to note that nobody expects the Democratic majority to hold. Some are even predicting that Republicans will take over the majority in the House.

The President isn’t interested in DADT repeal until December 1, 2010 at the very earliest, and the possibility of DADT repeal being debated, submitted, and voted on in both the House and Senate in the six weeks between December 1 and the start of the new session in January is exactly nil.

All of this despite the fact that congressional sources indicate that we have the votes in the House and are only a few away in the Senate. All of this despite the fact that according to every scientific poll taken in the last year, a ridiculous majority of Americans across most segments of the population (including conservatives) think DADT should be repealed. All of this despite the obvious fact that the most likely shot at repeal comes with its inclusion in the defense authorization bill to be released in May.

The bottom line is that President Obama doesn’t want DADT repeal to be an issue in this year’s congressional elections, and that in 2012′s presidential election, DADT is more valuable to him intact than it is repealed. Campaigns in somewhat conservative districts won’t be bothered with having voted for LGBT rights this year, improving the Democrats’ chances this November.

Then he begins his 2012 presidential campaign, in which he points at the Republicans who kept DADT repeal from happening in 2011-2012, having mitigated 2010′s conservative district problem with the national scope. He’ll be able to agree with most Americans that DADT should be repealed, making it either a non-issue or a positive issue in his campaign. He gets the gay vote with the same strategy he used in 2008. If he gets reelected, he can get to DADT sometime in his second term or not, depending on the makeup of Congress in 2013.

It’s a cynical strategy to be sure, but it’s the one I think he’s going with.

And he wonders why we’re hollerin’. (And will continue hollerin’. We aren’t going down without a fight.)

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Tuesday afternoon, Lt. Dan Choi and Cpt. Jim Pietrangelo, who cuffed themselves to the White House fence in protest of DADT, were joined on the fence by four other veterans.

From left to right, the six servicemembers were Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen (Trans advocate and Pam’s House Blend barista), Lt. Choi, Cpl. Evelyn Thomas, Cpt. Pietrangelo, Cadet Mara Boyd, and Petty Officer Larry Whitt. These six servicemembers represent all branches of military service. (GetEqual grand poo-bah Robin McGehee is below on the right.)

This was a peaceful and relatively small protest, but the DC Park Police went absolutely nuts, closed the park, pushing the crowd of mostly tourists and the media back several blocks, much further than is customary. It was really nervous-making for a bit there; historically, bad things happen when governments prevent reporters from covering anti-government protests. Fortunately, John Aravosis of Americablog.com was present to film the pushback.

While the crowd and the press were being pushed back, officers began arresting the protesters. Three were gone before the media were let back in, with Lt. Choi and the other two arrested shortly thereafter.

Park Police spokesman Sergeant David Schlosser later fell on his sword for the action, blaming rookies in the force for making the decision. I have to say, it’s surprising to hear that rookies are guarding the White House and making major decisions like this in such a sensitive area. And I don’t see anybody who looks rookie-age in the video above.

Huh.

At any rate, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs addressed the police issue on Wednesday. (I’ll get to the rest of his comments in another post.)

Okay, so back to the protesters. Like last time, they were held overnight. (Does anybody know if that’s customary in DC? I have a hard time believing that it is.) They were arraigned Wednesday, with Sandeen, Thomas, Boyd, and Whitt being released and their cases closed under a “post and forfeit” agreement.

Choi and Pietrangelo were arraigned separately because of last month’s offense, and after sorting out a stay-away order, the judge set their trial on both offenses for July 16, 2010.

Metro Weekly‘s Chris Geidner posted these brief comments from several of the servicemembers outside the courtroom.

So was the protest successful? I think so. The issue is being talked about, and it’s definitely on the President’s radar now. People are asking why the President is absent on DADT repeal this year when he was so adamant about it in January.

Between the pressure of the California protest directly to President Obama and the DC protest at the White House, the President’s script is being questioned and it has become less politically savvy to ignore LGBT rights. I don’t think we’re there yet, not by a long shot, but we’re quite a bit closer than we were Monday morning.

As for Lt. Choi, he’s back in New York for Army training this weekend.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As a refresher, here’s video of what happened on April 19, 2010:

Ever since I saw that video, I’ve wondered what happened to the protester that President Obama invited to the stage. Surely she wouldn’t refuse the invitation, right? Right!

Turns out that the protester in question was Zoe Nicholson. Here’s part of what she said on her blog after the event.

Zoe Nicholson before the protest

The boom of my voice was enormous. The whole room stopped, including the President. I had never heard myself be so loud. Clearly it would not be drown out by the people in my vicinity who started telling me to shut up. I just kept going. After several repetitions, the President look straight back to me and said, if you have so much to say, then come up here and say it. I said out loud yes, lifted my right hand as if to part the crowd and make my way.

Funny thing, I actually would have been more comfortable on the stage than in the crowd. I was relieved and all my facts were streaming through my mind about what I wanted to tell him. As I made a ten foot advance I felt two men in black suits take my elbows in tow. It wasn’t mean, it wasn’t aggressive just certain, with purpose and they knew that I was not going to resist their about face.

Another of the protesters, Laura Kanter, had this to say on her blog.

Laura Kanter before the protest

I could care less about getting attention; I wish someone else would have stepped up and done this – believe me. It was a very very difficult decision and I was well aware of the consequences. And there are and will be many.

I respect President Obama and I hope he will be re-elected, because he, through his courage, and by standing up, has inspired me to do the same. But he is about to leave the language to repeal DADT out of the defense bill – and then how much longer will our LGBT brothers and sisters have to serve in secrecy or simply be denied the right to serve?

Obama can handle our heckling, but the LGBT youth and others coming to terms with their sexuality are still suffering the slings and arrows of discriminatory policies like DADT that reinforce the idea that being anything other than straight is wrong, bad, evil, less than.

Thanks to all of Monday’s protestors (Laura, Zoe, David John Fleck, Dan Fotou, and Michelle Wright) for speaking out and getting the President’s attention!

(Photos via GetEqual on flickr.)

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Permalink
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh