Well, no more. Last Thursday, Mr. Lively got some company.

In sworn testimony on a potential Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal, Marine Corps General John J. Sheehan (ret.) told the US Congress that gays are to blame for 1995’s Srebrenica Genocide during the Bosnian War.

Rachel Maddow was on top of the story on her show that night.

Senator Carl Levin wasted no time challenging Gen. Sheehan’s lies, but the damage was already done. Dutch officials, including Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, immediately expressed stunned outrage at Gen. Sheehan’s claims.

Friday night, Maddow gave an update on the fallout.

Germany. Rwanda. Now Bosnia.

Gosh, I wonder where we’ll strike next.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

Once they were done at the White House, Get Equal moved to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices on Capitol Hill and in San Fransisco. There they refused to leave until Speaker Pelosi committed to a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has been languishing in Congress for…well, years.

No identities yet; will update when I get them

After several tense hours, four protesters at Pelosi’s office on the Hill were arrested and taken, coincidentally, to the same facility that Choi and Pietrangelo are being held in. Just before midnight, the ENDA 4 were released without bail.

Incidentally, Choi and Pietrangelo are being held without bail or contact to the outside world until they appear in court tomorrow.

Speaker Pelosi continues to stall on ENDA.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

Wow. Dan Choi (thankfully) hijacked this afternoon’s Human Rights Campaign/Kathy Griffin (don’t even get me started) rally to bring the attention back where it belongs: Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

How did he do it? He chained himself to the White House fence in his first major act of civil disobedience.

Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo (pic via @piconico)

In a futile attempt to manage headlines, police did not immediately arrest Lt. Choi or Capt. James Pietrangelo, whose Supreme Court appeal was denied last year after the Obama administration asked the Court not to take the case.

Instead, within ten minutes of the protest’s start, police arrested Robin McGehee, one of the organizers for last October’s Equality March and head of new group Get Equal, for “disorderly conduct” reportedly because she organized the protest.

Also, she wasn’t wearing a uniform. Arresting a servicemember in front of the White House would make for scandalous front page pictures.

Get Equal's Robin McGehee arrested (pic via @MichaelsThought)

But their effort didn’t get Lt. Choi or Cpt. Pietrangelo off the fence, so police finally handcuffed them half an hour later and placed them in a much less conspicuous police van. Still waiting for those pictures. This photo was taken as police began to remove them from the fence.

Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo arrested (via Kerry Eleveld of Advocate.com)

Hallelujah, praise the Lord, and thank you Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo for actual doing something.

This is what’s coming, gays. Time to stop begging for crumbs from the table. Time to stop accepting the calls to “be patient.” We are coming into the civil disobedience stage. Are you willing to be arrested for your freedom? Join Get Equal if you’re ready to put up. And by the way, rule number one: you don’t disperse because the police told you to. That’s what happened in the crowd today, and it needs to not happen again.

UPDATE 03/18/2010: Here’s video of CNN’s Rick Sanchez coverage this afternoon.

UPDATE 03/19/10: Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo were arraigned Friday afternoon after being held overnight without bail or access to a telephone. They were brought into the courtroom in handcuffs and leg irons. Both pleaded not guilty and opted for a jury trial over a $100 fine. Both were released and will stand trial on April 26, 2010.

P.S. Kathy Griffin, who said on HRC’s stage that she would come with Choi to the White House, never showed up. Her only tweet in reference about the White House protest bears that out. Predictably, once they turned her cameras off she didn’t really care all that much. HRC also decided not to show up.

Let this be a message to LGBTs everywhere: Don’t accept them as allies just because they say they’re allies. The time for easy allies who don’t want to get their hands dirty is over.

And that includes the HRC.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

AF Sgt. Jené Newsome

The Rapid City Police Department says Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when they showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

“It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” Allender said Saturday. “It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information.”

He said his department does not seek to expose gay military personnel or investigate the sexuality of Rapid City residents.

Allender said the department was finishing its internal investigation and has determined the officers acted appropriately. They have not been placed on leave during the investigation.

Newsome’s partner is currently out on bail on one felony and three misdemeanor counts of theft stemming from an incident last year, court officials in Fairbanks said. More information was not immediately available, and Newsome said she didn’t know the status of the case and didn’t provide more details about it.

In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.

Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn’t know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn’t help with her partner’s arrest.

“This information was intentionally turned over because of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and to out Jené so that she would lose her military status,” said Robert Doody, executive director of ACLU South Dakota. The ACLU is focusing its complaint on the police department, not the military, and Newsome said she and her attorney have not yet decided on whether to file a lawsuit.

“The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ piece is important and critical to this, but also it’s a police misconduct case,” Doody said.

Because of DOMA, the federal government does not recognize marriage between two people of the same gender. Even if it’s SOP to inform the Air Force when a servicemember’s spouse is charged with a crime (which I’m told is the case), the US Armed Services only recognize the federal definition of marriage, not the Iowa definition.

Therefore, for the purposes of the federal government, Sgt. Newsome has no spouse.

The local police department was not bound to notify anyone of Sgt. Newsome’s non-spouse, and in fact violated her privacy by vindictively submitting evidence that they found by peeking through her window for a witch hunt because they were mad at her.

Here’s a link to the Rapid City Police Department’s Twitter account. You know, in case you want to tell them what you think.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

From the Associated Press:

A pressing legal reality for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” standard for gays serving in the military is that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already struck down the way it’s practiced in much of the Western United States.

The 2008 ruling, while largely overlooked, would force the military to apply a much higher threshold in determining whether a service member should be dismissed for being gay.

The military branches say they haven’t changed how they go about issuing “don’t ask” dismissals in the states covered by the 9th Circuit — Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

But if the military is found to have been discharging people within the 9th Circuit without applying the higher standard, it could be forced to pay punitive damages in federal court, some lawyers say. Furthermore, if the military cannot demonstrate a gay member’s discharge would hurt the unit, that person might end up serving openly — even as others around the globe continue to be discharged.

[Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR)] suggested that the Defense Department cure the problem by making the venue for all “don’t ask” dismissals fall within the 9th Circuit, so that all service members would have the same rights.

The issue is typically referred to as the “Witt standard,” named after Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt. She was a decorated flight nurse at McChord Air Force Base in Washington who shared a house in Spokane with her longtime partner and was honorably discharged two years short of full retirement. She then sued.

A three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit upheld “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but granted constitutional protections to gay service members targeted for discharge, saying the military had to show that their firing furthered the goals of the policy, such as military readiness or unit cohesion. The decision became law as soon as it was issued, but it wasn’t until last June that Obama announced that the government would not appeal.

In other words, instead of the defendant proving that she/he is an exception to the broad “gays are grody” premise of DADT, the plaintiff must now prove the broad rule as it pertains to the individual servicemember.

This is, I think, a game changer.

If Rep. Snyder’s proposal is approved, the Witt Standard would be used in every DADT prosecution throughout the military. And even if it isn’t approved, the Witt Standard already applies to military posts within the wide jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s notable because it would include high-profile defendant Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach.

Maj. Witt and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach

The ruling also reinstated Witt’s lawsuit against the Air Force, which is headed for trial in federal court in Tacoma. Witt argues that her dismissal actually hurt troop readiness and morale. There was a shortage of flight nurses at the time, she says, and one of her colleagues, a sergeant, resigned in protest of her dismissal.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15 fighter pilot from Idaho, said the Air Force refused to apply the higher standard during his discharge proceedings last year.

“If the burden of proof was on the Air Force to prove that my presence was detrimental to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion, there would have been a different outcome,” he said. “If the Witt standard had been followed, I would be continuing to serve with no problems whatsoever.”

When gay service members sued over their dismissals in the first decade of the policy, courts historically accepted the military’s argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

But the judges in the Witt case said the legal landscape changed when the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy. The 9th Circuit said that the landmark decision opened the door for the courts to take a fresh look at the constitutional rights of gay Americans.

We now have a DADT repeal bill in both the House and the Senate. President Obama is (theoretically) on board. Top US military leaders say not only that it isn’t necessary, but that it’s actually harmful. The vast majority of Americans, in study after study, say the law should be pitched.

Use of the Witt Standard is not a replacement for repeal. It does not put an end to this discriminatory and thoroughly un-American law. It is not the goal that we seek.

But if it’s applied as required by federal law in the 9th Circuit, it could stop the bleeding while we wait for Representatives and Senators to do their jobs.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

Mmm, gives me shivers. Just like the old days.

John “Called His Wife A Cunt” McCain was on Meet The Press yesterday, and he pulled out his “dick fingers” again, this time when talking about his hypocrisy on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

Of course, to explain his hypocrisy, McCain had to move his goal posts, changing the definition of “military leaders” to include the level below the actual leaders of the military. I don’t know, maybe he’s the granddaddy of message board trolls.

But just for the record, when Admiral Mullen said he was speaking “personally”, he was trying to make it clear that he didn’t hold the opinion that DADT should be repealed because somebody ordered him to. These were his views, not those of President Obama or Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Obviously.

John McCain, you have yet again proven yourself to be a horrible, hypocritical, ego-maniacal, lying, bigoted scumbag. Acquaint yourself with the concepts of Patriotism and the most basic American ideals. You’re running out of time.

(P.S. Jed at DailyKos has the video proving that McCain also lied about the bailout yesterday in the video above. Because that’s what he does best!)

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

I’d hoped this meme would go away, but bloggers keep claiming that in his State of the Union Address President Obama promised a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) this year.

The simple truth is that President Obama didn’t say that. Here’s what he said (Don’t worry, it’s cued for that sentence):

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

Now forgive my mangling of terminology, but I remember from school that a sentence must make sense without the prepositional phrases. Removing President Obama’s long ass prepositional phrase, we have this:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

He did not say they would repeal the law this year. He said they would work on it this year. Of course, I hope DADT repeal happens this year, and I’m cautiously optimistic of our chances.

I also think Obama is wise to let highly decorated women and men in uniform make the case on camera to Congress rather than open the way for Republican outcries of partisan politics.

But the Wordsmith-in-Chief didn’t make the promise of repeal in 2010, no matter how much we wish he had.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

Fortunately for me, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach had the same question, which he asked on The Rachel Maddow Show last night.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Also from The Rachel Maddow Show, Senator McCain is a big ole hypocrite when it comes to DADT. (He’s a hypocrite in a lot of other ways, but let’s stay on task.)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Finally, here’s a tweet from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. I cannot overstate the importance of his support yesterday. Neither can I overstate my appreciation for it.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (a sister company to Focus on the Family) was on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight alongside SLDN’s Aubrey Sarvis to talk about DADT. This video should be set to the last thirty seconds of the segment when Sprigg let the cat out of the bag. See transcript below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Matthews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible.

Matthews: No, I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

Sprigg: Yes. [laughs]

Keep in mind that a year ago, Peter Sprigg said that gays should face more taxes than straight people, and a year before that he went on television to suggest that gays be rounded up and “exported”.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Make no mistake: Peter Sprigg is one of the few anti-gay leaders who actually speaks his mind, and the rest of them are thinking exactly what he says. I shudder to think what he keeps to himself.

Incidentally, I hope someone thinks to enter this video into evidence in Perry v Schwarzenegger, the Prop 8 trial. If ever we had evidence of anti-gay animus being whipped up, this is it.

(Hat tip to Alvin McEwen.)

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
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

From my count, we got two indications from today’s hearing.

Sen. John McCain’s opening remarks include the statement that “this policy has worked successfully in my view.” (via Kerry Eleveld’s twitter stream) I would hardly call Sen. McCain moderate, especially considering his unabashedly anti-gay statements during last year’s failed campaign for the presidency, but it’s still disheartening to hear such nonsense go unchallenged.

More troublesome, though, is Dr. Stanley’s response to a question from Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois about what happens to current DADT investigations if DADT is repealed. Stanley’s answer was, “if there are pending cases, they would fall under the existing statute. That’s about all I can say about that at this time.” (again from Kerry Eleveld’s coverage)

We had hoped, or at least I had hoped, that DADT’s repeal would end the destruction of honorable servicemembers’ lives. That doesn’t seem to be the case, at least not according to the testimony of this candidate.

Lt. Choi and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach

Based on this testimony I have to wonder: Is it too late? Should current DADT victims give up their personal fights for justice to save their veterans benefits? It might be too late to save their careers, but can they save their futures?

Lt. Dan Choi came home from an extended tour of duty in Iraq with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). If he gets a less-than-honorable discharge (which is guaranteed if he fights his firing), he will lose his veteran health benefits and, at least to my understanding, his PTSD would be used as a preexisting condition to deny coverage from health insurance companies.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach is now about a year away from his 20-year retirement date. Remember, if he continues to fight for justice, he will lose retirement funds of $46,000 per year for the rest of his life, all of the lifetime veteran health benefits he has earned, and $80,000 in separation pay.

All this because the cases came a year before congress had the courage to act.

Is this how America treats its veterans? Is it really?

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2009. | Post a comment
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