<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Military Paper Confirms HRC&#8217;s Deal to De-Prioritize &#8216;Don&#8217;t Ask &#8211; Don&#8217;t Tell&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:29:53 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362/comment-page-1#comment-43184</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12362#comment-43184</guid>
		<description>I called HRC to ask them to refund my recent donation and spoke to Lisette (sp?).  She stipulated the impossibility of responding to unnamed sources in Stars and Stripes and insisted that the Bellini report is &quot;all lies&quot;, and that HRC &quot;would never say &#039;no, we don&#039;t want that&#039;&quot;.  

My point, and I think Bellini&#039;s point, was that HRC wouldn&#039;t &amp; didn&#039;t say such a thing, but they might be willing -- and I think did -- agree to let things slide for a session and provide cover... if HRC&#039;s legislative priorities are met -- and they get to take credit for it.

Over the course of the conversation, Lisette took credit for HRC for marriage equality in Iowa and Maine. I can&#039;t speak to their involvement in Maine, but given that Iowa was a court decision, I think this is another case of HRC taking credit where credit is NOT due.  

I&#039;m WAY on the outside, but from where I sit in the cheap seats, HRC is way to cozy with the folks in Washington, and they aren&#039;t listening to the Pride parades on Main St.  

Obviously, I&#039;m ticked... Apparently in 7-10 days, I&#039;m getting my donation back from HRC.  I&#039;m sending it out to any one of several other groups that are fighting for me: Lambda Legal, GLAAD, or maybe Mayor Gavin Newsome&#039;s bid to be my governor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I called HRC to ask them to refund my recent donation and spoke to Lisette (sp?).  She stipulated the impossibility of responding to unnamed sources in Stars and Stripes and insisted that the Bellini report is &#8220;all lies&#8221;, and that HRC &#8220;would never say &#8216;no, we don&#8217;t want that&#8217;&#8221;.  </p>
<p>My point, and I think Bellini&#8217;s point, was that HRC wouldn&#8217;t &amp; didn&#8217;t say such a thing, but they might be willing &#8212; and I think did &#8212; agree to let things slide for a session and provide cover&#8230; if HRC&#8217;s legislative priorities are met &#8212; and they get to take credit for it.</p>
<p>Over the course of the conversation, Lisette took credit for HRC for marriage equality in Iowa and Maine. I can&#8217;t speak to their involvement in Maine, but given that Iowa was a court decision, I think this is another case of HRC taking credit where credit is NOT due.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m WAY on the outside, but from where I sit in the cheap seats, HRC is way to cozy with the folks in Washington, and they aren&#8217;t listening to the Pride parades on Main St.  </p>
<p>Obviously, I&#8217;m ticked&#8230; Apparently in 7-10 days, I&#8217;m getting my donation back from HRC.  I&#8217;m sending it out to any one of several other groups that are fighting for me: Lambda Legal, GLAAD, or maybe Mayor Gavin Newsome&#8217;s bid to be my governor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Update on &#8220;Don&#8217;t Ask&#8221; and HRC&#8217;s Back Room Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362/comment-page-1#comment-43168</link>
		<dc:creator>Update on &#8220;Don&#8217;t Ask&#8221; and HRC&#8217;s Back Room Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12362#comment-43168</guid>
		<description>[...] via BoxTurtleBulletin [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] via BoxTurtleBulletin [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Let&#8217;s Make a Deal &#171; ENDAblog</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362/comment-page-1#comment-43162</link>
		<dc:creator>Let&#8217;s Make a Deal &#171; ENDAblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12362#comment-43162</guid>
		<description>[...] Make a&#160;Deal  According to a post this morning by Pam Spaulding: Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin discovered quite a bit of business in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. One can only assume [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Make a&nbsp;Deal  According to a post this morning by Pam Spaulding: Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin discovered quite a bit of business in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. One can only assume [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Burroway</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362/comment-page-1#comment-43120</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Burroway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12362#comment-43120</guid>
		<description>Oh, nevermind. I see it now. The concern is over a Pentagon employee whose partner is serving in the military, and thus &quot;outing&quot; the partner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, nevermind. I see it now. The concern is over a Pentagon employee whose partner is serving in the military, and thus &#8220;outing&#8221; the partner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Burroway</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12362/comment-page-1#comment-43119</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Burroway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12362#comment-43119</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s something I don&#039;t think is right about the Stars and Stripes article. I don&#039;t believe that civilian Pentagon employees fall under DADT. My understanding is that DADT covers enlisted personnel only, not civilian employees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s something I don&#8217;t think is right about the Stars and Stripes article. I don&#8217;t believe that civilian Pentagon employees fall under DADT. My understanding is that DADT covers enlisted personnel only, not civilian employees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
