Preliminary information ...

Steel City's board has officially endorsed Sestak, Conklin and Onorato in the General Election.  Good discussion.  I'm sure the official slate will be up soon on the steel city website.  You can pick up copies at the booth during PrideFest. 

The slate will contain some informaton on why voting Democratic ticket is so important.

Meanwhile on the national scene, debate rages over the timidity of the DADT action.  Some, mainly the insider A-list gays, seem absolutely convinced this is significant.  Meanwhile, the more grassroots/actvist leaders are furious about the timidity.  Make no mistake, this is not a repeal.  The language is much more nuanced.  Pay attention and form your own conclusions. 

It is watered down, but it is a step forward. 

Pam.

sdf

"So it was OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend."--Jon Stewart

It has been a big day for the repeal of DADT.  Specifically, there is word that Congress (both chambers) will consider amendments of the Defense Reauthorizaton Act, amendments that will repeal the DADT policy. h/t Towleroad

Of interest to those of us in Pennsylvania is leadership from Congressman Patrick Murphy, a strong proponent of the repeal. From MetroWeekly comes a copy of a letter to President Obama by Murphy and Senators Levin and Lieberman asking for "official views" on the repeal of DADT.

"We will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle this week to pass legislation that repeals ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell? but does so in a way that accommodates the recommendations of the working group and is consistent with the military?s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention."

The HRC weighs in ...

The proposal would allow Congress to vote to repeal the current DADT law now with implementation to follow upon completion of the Pentagon Working Group study due December 1, 2010.  The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would need to certify that implementation policies and regulations are prepared and that they are consistent with standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. The plan therefore addresses concerns expressed by the Pentagon that the implementation study process be respected.

Not everyone is a fan of this brokered compromise.  Pam Spaulding weighs in.

Do they think we cannot see the political jiu-jitsu at work -- it's repeal with no teeth, as in it gives the administration and the LGBT groups the ability to claim "victory" in 2010, without actually freeing the members of the military who will continue to serve in silence. They have to wait for 1) the study to reach completion (what was likely to happen regardless) and a new wrinkle -- 2) an arbitrary time when the President, Gates and Mullen decide they know how to implement it without any ill effects, and the president signs an executive order signaling "go forth" with anti-discrimination measures. That's a pitiful half-measure. How about "it's an order?"

The Obama administration has left the fate of service members in the hands of the Pentagon as the final arbiter -- and whoever was present  working on our behalf as a community thinks this is palatable. Remember that.

It is funny that two different folks told me today that I need to basically say "it's an order" more often.  Hmmm.

The vote to repeal, but lack of timeframe seems rather artificial. I just don't see why we have to coddle homophobes in the military. If people don't want to serve with openly gay soldiers (or African-Americans or women or people of the Muslim faith), DON'T SERVE.  Do something else to give back to your country. Don't hold back the brave men and women who are willing to serve -- sacrifice their lives -- us. 

Still, at this juncture, we need to continue putting pressure on our legislators to support the amendment.  Have you called, yet?

More later. 

Oh, here's a piece from KOS from the "this is bullshit" perspective.

A post over at Daily Kos on the potental impassability of the DADT repeal and the consequences of such.

These activists share not a common organizer, but rather a common complaint: "Our needs are not being addressed. We are tired of being marginalized and ignored. It is not OK to toss us out of the coalitionas was done in the healthcare reform legislation and may well still happen on comprehensive immigration reform. We matter. Our contributions to the coalition are worth fighting for."

This really isn't a threat. It's just an insider's observation. There will be trouble. The gay community has done its work, by making our case to the American people. The poll numbers didn't move themselves, we've made it politically viable for Democrats to vote in our interests. It's time to do it. The solution to avoid all this angst and in-fighting, seems remarkably easy: Pass ENDA, repeal DADT. The valve will release. The storm will turn 180 degrees back out to sea.

The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld has a piece up on the non-impact of the White House LGBT liaison, Brian Bond.

The problem for Obama is ? no one knows Brian Bond, except Beltway insiders and selected A-gay ?leaders? with whom he apparently holds private meetings to presumably discuss the LGBT ?agenda.? It is impossible to know what is being discussed because the A-gays do not report back to the community either.

That very disconnect is an ongoing source of frustration for those of us who are very much not on the A-list. 

Failure to repeal DADT (or pass ENDA) is a sad reflection that the A-list is not the same as A-game. 

Groan.  Colonel Richard Young of Texas, formerly of Ellwood Cty has a letter to the editor in the Trib.  He argues against the repeal of DADT because it will impinge on military chaplains. 

While chaplains are willing to minister to everyone, including people they disagree with, they cannot allow the government to censor parts of their faith. Not only would chaplains lose religious freedom, but so would service members who wouldn't have the benefit of the full counsel of God if chaplains  are muzzled.

Pitting "religious liberty" against LGBTQ equality always frustrates me.  There are no freedoms to be lost for homophobic military chaplains if gay soldiers live openly.  Colonel Young disagrees:

Teaching on sexual morality would be endangered. Counseling biblically could generate charges of "discrimination." Declining to perform same-sex "marriages" could bring the ire of activists. And these scenarios could easily bring about career-ending Officer Efficiency Reports for chaplains who obey God rather than man.

Not true, Colonel.  The repeal of DADT won't have any impact on your ability to counsel soldiers.  Your argument would carry more weight if you could provide evidence that desegragating the military had an adverse impact on chaplains who found that decision offensive.  Other than personal angst ...

Gay activists don't care if you perform same sex marriages.  Seriously. The obey God, not man piece is quite a nugget -- this is the military, for God's sake. It is all about obeying men (and some women). 

Stll, Colonel Young took the time to write and submit his point of view in socially conservative SW Pennsylvania.  Are we effectively exercising our First Amendment freedom to do the same?

May 26 2010 - 7:00pm

The meeting takes place in the private glassed in room at Panera Bread, 3401 Blvd of the Allies, Oakland.  This branch of Panera has a large free parking lot.

At this board meeting we will be deciding endorsements for the November 2nd General Election.  This will be a closed meeting open only to 2010 members of Steel-City Stonewall Democrats.  All members are welcome to come and give their input.

Good chance to get involved and learn how you can impact the critical elections of November AND how those elections are going to impact your family. 

A glimpse around the blogosphere ...

Pam's House Blend has a great liveblog with Joe Sestak and Lt. Dan Choi.  Here's her report on the election results.

Change.org on what the Sestak victory means for LGBT equal rights.

From The Huffington Post ....

I suggest that a similar disgust is stewing in the guts of gays watching straight Democrats - who give love when they want votes and money - fidget and squirm out of their promises. They may not even know they're being homophobic - much as Specter was infused with sexism. But the result is the same: LGBTs are humiliated and abandoned for straight political expediency. There are some notable exceptions, of course - Rep. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Carl Levin on repealing DADT, are extraordinary examples.

But in 2010, the silence and backtracking of cowardly Democrats is just as painful and nauseating to LGBTs as the prosecution of Anita Hill by Arlen Specter in 1991. That may seem over the top to some - but that's the reaction bred by festering rage. And it may take a long time for revenge, as it did with Specter - or it may just take until November.

sdf