Box Turtle Bulletin

Pete Sessions To Duck LCR Dinner

Roll Call reports that Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) will not make it to tonight’s Log Cabin Republicans dinner after all, saying that he needs to attend a House Republican Caucus meeting instead. Sessions’ home town paper The Dallas Voice finds that explanation “convenient.” They also note that Sessions’ spokesperson, Emily Davis, “mysteriously became unavailable after we identified ourselves as being from the gay paper, and she hasn’t gotten back to us.”

Sessions was to be honored by the gay Republican group with the Barry Goldwater Award, despite holding positions on gay rights that were at odds with those of the late Senator who was popularly known as “Mister Conservative.” Since he will be a no-show, does he still get the award? Because if so, that would be a neat trick. He would get an award from a gay rights group without the embarrassment of having a photo taken of him shaking hands with a gay rights advocate six weeks before an election.

Why Gay Journalists Matter

I attended the annual convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) last Sepember, but I haven’t written anything about it as I wanted to share my thoughts privately with other interested persons at the convention. But I did have the pleasure of meeting Michael Tripplet, who contributes to the NLGJA’s blog. Today, Michael answer the question that was batted around the convention: Do gay journalists still matter? This clip from Minneapolis’ Fox9 news provides strong testimony:

Florida Appeals Court: State Adoption Ban Unconstitutional

A Florida appeals court in Miami unanimously ruled that the state’s ban on gays adopting children is unconstitutional.

In the court’s 3-0 decision (PDF: 107KB/42 pages), the judges examined Florida’s adoption law which calls for a case-by-case examination of the prospective adoptive parents in order to determine their individual suitability to become a parent. Single adults are allowed to adopt, HIV-positive are allowed to adopt, and the court noted that even those with a history of child neglect are able to adopt after following a laborious process. There was only one lone exception to Florida’s case-by-case consideration for adoption: “Except for homosexual persons, there is no automatic, categorical exclusion of anyone from consideration for adoption.”

The Court also noted that gay people are not excluded under Florida law from becoming parents by other means. They are allowed to become foster parents, and Florida law also allows guardianship and custody of gay parents over children. The court concluded that “It is difficult to see any rational basis in utilizing homosexual persons as foster parents or guardians on a temporary or permanent basis, while imposing a blanket prohibition on adoption by those same persons.”

The court took particular note of the state’s “expert witnesses” in support of the adoption ban. The court noted that Dr. Walter Schumm, who has defended the research of discredited anti-gay extremist Paul Cameron, was not a psychologist and was “of no assistance to the Department’s argument.” As for George Rekers, who was later revealed to have hired a rentboy to accompany him on a European vacation, the court took special note that Rekers research relied heavily on Cameron’s discredited work. And in particular, the appeals court took special efforts to dissect the Florida Dept. of Children and Families’ extremely selective citing and outright distortions of other social science research, noting that some of the research actually reached conclusions that were the opposite of the Department’s assertions.

The court concluded by declaring that the state’s ban on gays adopting children was a violation of the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution.

So far, we have not heard whether the State intends to appeal the decision to the Florida Supreme Court.

Russian LGBT Activist Arrested Again, This Time At Moscow Rally

LGBT Activist Nikolai Alekseev has had a busy week this week. He was among eleven activists who were arrested yesterday during a banned protest outside of Moscow City Hall. All eleven activists have been subsequently released. The activists were protesting against Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, whose recent remarks about “faggots” were ruled by a Moscow court as not being hate speech. The protesters had chained themselves to a railing outside of city hall.

Luzhkov abruptly left Moscow to “vacation” at a home in Austria. He is under widespread pressure to resign his post amid widespread allegations of corruption and incompetence. Independent observers believe that some in Russia’s central government see Luzhkov’s power base in Moscow city government as potential threat.

Alekseev has recently been released following a bizarre kidnapping by Russian security forces at week at Moscow’s Domodedovo International Airport as he was about to board a flight to Geneva. He was held for two days as his captors demanded that he withdraw his lawsuits against Russia lodged at the European Court of Human Rights. They also demanded that he cancel yesterday’s protest at city hall. At one point, his captors used his mobile phone to put out false text messages that Alekseev had fled to Belarus and demanded political asylum. You can read about Alekseev’s account of his ordeal here.

Anti-Gay Megachurch Pastor Accused Of Pressuring Men Into Sex

Surprised?

The prominent pastor of a 25,000-member megachurch near Atlanta denies allegations in a lawsuit that he coerced two young men from the congregation into a sexual relationship, his attorney said. Lawyers for the men, now 20 and 21, say they filed the lawsuit Tuesday in DeKalb County Court against Bishop Eddie Long. The Associated Press generally does not identify people who say they were victims of sexual impropriety.

…The men who filed the suit were 17- and 18-year-old members of the church when they say Long abused his spiritual authority to seduce them with cars, money, clothes, jewelry, international trips and access to celebrities.

Long has campaigned against same-sex marriage, and he runs an ex-gay ministry called “Out of the Wilderness.” In 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center published a profile of Long in which he commented on how hot gay sex can be:

“Men can look attractive when they are dirty,” writes Bishop Eddie Long in his 1997 book I Don’t Want Delilah, I Need You! “We see sweating, dirty, hardworking men on television all the time and we say to one another, ‘There’s a macho guy.'”

Moments later, he would repeat the Levitical mandate that gays be put to death. “Homosexuality and lesbianism are spiritual abortions,” Long says.

Does This Mean Harry Reid Gets To Keep Dan Choi’s Ring?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Lt. Dan Choi at Netroots Nation (Photo by Pam Spaulding)

If we’re going to cast blame for yesterday’s debacle in the Senate as Democrats failed to break a Republican filibuster against a Defense Appropriations Bill that would begin the process of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it is important to make sure everyone is accounted for. First and foremost, primary responsibility must fall on all forty Republicans and the two Democrats, Arkansans Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor, who supported the filibuster. They will be remembered for being on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of what some three-fourths of the American people support.

But anyone with any powers of observation over the circumstances under which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought the bill to the floor cannot reasonably escape the conclusion that the filibuster suits his political purposes as well, as he and many other Senate Democrats struggle to hold onto their seats in tight mid-term campaigns. To not recognize that what happened yesterday was nothing but political theater, and that all the participants came away with something they wanted going into the final stretch of the campaign season — well let’s just say that just because Schoolhouse Rock didn’t cover political theater, it doesn’t mean it’s not an important byproduct of the legislative process, even if (or especially if) a bill fails to become a law. And in this case, that nasty byproduct was more important than actually doing the horse-trading it takes to pass the bill itself.

Last July when Reid appeared at Netroots Nation in Las Vegas, he was approached by Lt. Dan Choi, who had just been discharged from the Army. Choi handed Reid his West Point ring with the promise that Choi would hold Reid accountable for passing DADT’s repeal. “When the bill’s signed, I’ll keep it safely and then give it back to him,” Reid said. I guess the ring is still safe somewhere.

Hate attack appears to come from Sen. Chambliss’ office

Today around noon someone going by “Jimmy” left the following message on Joe Jervis’ blogsite, JoeMyGod, on a thread discussing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

Joe released the IP address of the computer from which the comment was made, and it was identified as belonging to the US Senate and was located in Atlanta, GA. The Senate offices of Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, both Republicans, are located in the same building and the longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates for the IP address direct to that building.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has made inquiries of the Senators’ staff:

A spokeswoman for Isakson said his staff quickly ascertained that the message did not originate there.

Which leaves one other possibility

“We have seen the allegations and are moving quickly to understand the facts. This office has not and will not tolerate any activity of the sort alleged,” Chambliss spokeswoman Bronwyn Lance Chester said. “Once we have ascertained whether these claims are true, we will take the appropriate steps.”

It will be interesting to discover exactly what Sen. Chambliss considers to be appropriate. And it makes one wonder exactly what sort of political atmosphere exists in his office which would allow a staff member to assume that such behavior was acceptable.

Update: Joe Jervis has received confirmation that the comment did indeed come from Chambliss’ office. The identity of the commenter may come tomorrow.

McCain: “They Do Not! They Do Not! They Do Not Go After Whether Someone Is Gay Or Not!”

Either Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is delusional or forgetful in his old age, but just after today’s vote that upheld McCain’s filibuster against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”  the old gripester insisted that the Defense Department does not “go after” gay people to discharge them under the current law:

He then ended the press conference by shouting “Get off my lawn!” and refusing to hand over the volleyball that went over his back fence.

McCain must have forgotten testimony that he heard not so long ago:

In fact, as [Major Mike] Almy explained in testimoney before McCain’s own committee (Senate Armed Services): “In Iraq, during the height of the insurgency, someone in the Air Force ordered a search of my private emails solely to determine if I had violated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and to gather whatever evidence could be used against me.” “I was relieved of my duties, leading nearly 200 Airmen, my security clearance was suspended and part of my pay was terminated. Even as my commander was relieving me of my duties, he assured me this was in no way a reflection of my performance or my abilities as an officer,” Almy testified.

Click here to read the transcript of Sen. McCain’s tirade

The DADT Repeal Repertory Theater

It’s official. The start of the process of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been put on hold. Both Arkansas Democrats, Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor, joined all 40 Republicans to sustain the filibuster against the National Defense Appropriations Act. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote at the last minute in a procedural maneuver that will allow him to bring the bill back to the Senate floor for a later revote. At this time, that vote will almost certainly not take place until after the November elections during a lame-duck session.

In the days leading up to today’s vote, Reid announced that he would allow a vote on only three amendments to the appropriations bill. One proposed amendment, which would have removed the DADT repeal language from the bill, would almost certainly not have garnered the sixty votes needed pass muster. A second proposed amendment, which would have provided a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who served in the U.S. military or who graduate from college, also likely would have failed due to Republican opposition and discomfort among some Democrats. A third proposed amendment would have placed limits on Senators being able to place holds on nominations.

Those were the only amendments that Reid would allow to come up for a vote, all of which were chosen by Reid for the political advantage they would give the Democrats in tough mid-term election campaigns. His gamble wasn’t really a gamble at all. In fact, his gambit was a win-win for Democrats, at least in how they see their strategy unfolding. If Republicans upheld the filibuster, then Reid could go home and say that it was the Republicans who blocked DADT’s repeal and immigration reform. If the Dems had prevailed on the filibuster, then Reid would have been able to get the Republican caucus on record on these two issues ahead of the November elections. Either way, what Reid actually sought to accomplish was political gamesmanship, not Senatorial statesmanship.

The Republican caucus insisted that they be allowed to bring proposed amendments up for a vote as well, a reasonable demand that in ordinary times would not have raised an eyebrow. But these are not ordinary times. Votes in the Senate aren’t about actually doing anything but positioning for the elections. I don’t know what amendments Republicans wanted votes on, but they were undoubtedly just as politically divisive as Reid’s chosen amendments. But by not even allowing debate on a very limited number of those other amendments, Reid doomed DADT’s repeal until after the election.

The sixty votes needed to break the filibuster had already been lined up, but that was before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to limit debates and votes on amendments. That led to a collapse in support in ending the filibuster. Servicemembers United, which has been campaigning for DADT’s repeal, saw through Reid’s political posturing. SU’s Executive Director Alexander Nicholson criticized Reid’s position yesterday on MSNBC:

“If Senator Reid would just budge a little bit and come to an agreement on a reasonable way to proceed, we could potentially get the votes. But so far, he’s not been willing to do that, unfortunately.”

Following today’s vote, Nicholson said called it “a failure of leadership.” Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis was more circumspect, saying:

Today’s Senate vote was a frustrating blow to repeal this horrible law. We lost because of the political maneuvering dictated by the mid-term elections.

So if Reid had the votes to break the filibuster but squandered them in this procedural maneuver, why did he do this? The answer is simple. This was never a serious attempt to pass legislation in the best interests of the American people. It was nothing but political theater, and everyone on both sides were eager actors in the drama. All the Senators had a role to play, and everyone played to the audience. Even the White House was given a bit part. They issued a statement calling for an end to the filibuster, but according to SLDN’s Trevor Thomas, there was no lobbying behind the scenes.

And now that the vote has been taken, the play moves on to its second act: everyone now gets to go home and use it on the campaign trail. Republicans, even those who support DADT’s repeal, will be able to brag that they stood up to the evil Democratic machine. Democrats will be able to blame the evil Republican machine for blocking legislation that three-fourths of the American population agree on.

What happens in the third act — when the legislation re-appears in a lame-duck session after the elections — is anybody’s guess right now. It’s shaping up to be quite a cliff-hanger, so don’t touch that dial!

And what role do we in the gay community play? It’s the same role we always play. We’re the interesting and colorful plotline. It’s not much of a speaking part, but the dance moves are fabulous. And why should it be otherwise? It’s a role we’ve played so well over the years that it’s just expected of us. And we are happy to oblige. This time, we even have Lady Gaga making a guest appearance.

Which makes all of this really funny when you think about it. For all the talk of unbridgeable differences in today’s political landscape, Reid’s maneuver was a gift to all one hundred Senators of something every one of them wanted: a campaign issue. With today’s drama, everyone wins — Hooray for Reid! — everyone, that is, with the exception of the American people.

Defense Appropriations does not get cloture – focus turns to LCR case

Los Angeles Times:

The measure repealing the military policy banning gays from serving openly was part of the 2011 Defense authorization bill. Democrats tried to bring up the bill for consideration but failed to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome determined GOP-led opposition. Supporters voted 56-43 in favor of starting debate on the Defense bill, short of the 60 needed.

From what I was able to hear of the debate, the hold-up was the Dream Act more than DADT, but I only heard small portions.

So there was no repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and there is plenty of blame to go around as to why. But perhaps more importantly is what happens now.

Now the ball is in the Obama Administration’s court. The President can single-handedly end the policy this week.

Log Cabin Republicans have asked for a world-wide injunction on the enforcement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy following their successful case in federal court. The administration has yet to announce whether they will appeal this decision or fight the injunction, but they must decide on the latter by this Thursday.

Should the Obama Administration decline to oppose the injunction, then Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is dead. It may continue to sit on the books until a future date, but it can no longer be an impediment to open service.

They could also decide to request a delayed injunction, a period of time in which to phase in the change in policy. This would indicate that the Administration is committed to ending the discriminatory policy.

Or the Administration could oppose any injunction, a move that would signal their intention to appeal the decision and to fight for the continuance of the ban on open gay service. Considering the likely change in Congressional partisan make-up, this would quite possibly mean that repealing DADT is unlikely for the foreseeable future.

The choice is now the President’s. On Thursday we will know whether he is a fierce advocate.

Obama’s Marine pick lobbies against DADT repeal

Barack Obama’s selection for Marine Corp commander stepped into the debate over the Military’s anti-gay policy to oppose the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. (CNN)

The Senate Armed Services Committee, which held a hearing Tuesday on the nomination of [James] Amos to become commandant, released 37 pages of policy questions the general answered in advance.

“In my personal view the current law and associated policy have supported the unique requirements of the Marine Corps and thus I do not recommend its repeal,” Amos wrote.

“My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of expended combat operations,” Amos said in his answer to the committee’s advance questions.

I’m disgusted.

Sen. Collins: “I Cannot Vote to Proceed”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s insistence on refusing to allow votes on amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill is having the feared effect of driving previous Republican supporters of the bill from voting for cloture. This is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on the Senate floor:

They deserve to have a civil, fair and open debate on the Senate floor, and that is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the majority leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments

…Now, Mr. President, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I support the provisions in this bill. I debated for them. I was the sole Republican in the committee that voted for the Lieberman-Levin language on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I think it’s the right thing to do. I think it’s only fair, I think we should welcome the service of these individuals who are willing and capable of serving their country. But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments.”

According to reports, Reid once had her vote, but he lost it when he made the decision to refuse to allow votes on Republican amendments. Others on the fence were George Lemieux (R-FL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME);, Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Jim Webb (D-VA), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Kit Bond (R-MO). It is unclear what effect Collins’ decision will have on the others.

The White House has issued a public statement supporting the Defense Authorization bill, but the Washington Blade quotes Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s Trevor Thomas: “We have not seen any signs that the White House has been whipping this vote in the last 48 hours.”

DADT repeal included in defense bill today

Today Senator Reid will bring up the 2011 Defense Appropriations Bill for cloture – the process to bring the bill to a vote. Although the bill itself only requires 50 votes, cloture (ending discussion) requires 60 votes.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few stumbling blocks in the bill which may result in Republicans unanimously voting against cloture. As Jim reported, Reid is denying the ability of Republicans to offer amendments to the bill, even those which would likely have broad bipartisan support, while reserving for himself the right to introduce some of his own. Here are a few of the problems with the bill:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – although this is the highest profile provision, it may not be the most controversial. A few conservative Senators have railed on about this, but I strongly doubt that this alone would have been adequate to hold up the defense bill. However, this will likely be the only provision that gets the blame.

Abortion – the bill would change the rules to allow for abortions to be performed in government hospitals.

Dream Act – this is a provision that would provide citizenship to some immigrants in the country illegally. In addition to it having only tangential relationship to Defense (the listed criteria includes Military service, a provision already available), it is controversial and not broadly supported.

Wasteful Spending – the White House has indicated that it is concerned about provisions of the bill that it sees as pork and has threatened a veto. They are unlikely to be alone in wishing to question some expenditures that may be focused less on defense than on providing federal money to “the folks back home.”

Unless Harry Reid allows Republicans to at least plead their case on these and other issues, there is a high likelihood that moderate Republicans will refuse support.

Is Sen. Reid Sabotaging DADT’s Repeal?

That’s what Servicemembers’s United’s Alexander Nicholson is asking this morning:

Just more than 60 votes had been lined up to break a filibuster on (the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA) and allow the legislation to move forward for debate, amendments and a final vote before the Senate adjourns for yet another month-and-a-half-long recess. That was until Sen. Reid announced he was going to use his status as Senate Majority Leader to block the minority’s customary ability to also offer their amendments to the massive annual defense-spending bill.

This unusual and controversial move by Sen. Reid predictably enraged all Republicans, including the few who were previously prepared to help break the filibuster and allow a repeal-inclusive NDAA to move forward. And who can blame them? This isn’t a very fair move on Sen. Reid’s part, and it wasn’t a very fair move at points in the past when Republicans did it either.

…Observers are already catching on to the fact that Sen. Reid is setting himself up to simply say “I tried” when Republicans vote to filibuster NDAA on Tuesday, but “I tried” will not be good enough anymore. We see through this trick, and we’ll make sure everyone else does, too. If NDAA fails this week because of cheap political stunts, we will ensure it is the Senate leadership that is held accountable, not the unreasonably slighted minority.

Christine O’Donnell: Gays Suffer From “Identity Disorder”

Christine O’Donnell, the Delaware Republican Senatorial candidate whose Tea Party-backed campaign upset the GOP’s favorite in the primaries, has parroted the ex-gay line with regard to gay people as recently as 2006. In an interview with the Wilmington News Journal reporter Victor Greto, O’Donnel said:

“People are created in God’s image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It’s an identity disorder.”

Calling homosexuality an “identity disorder” is a classic feature of the ex-gay lexicon. O’Donnell undoubtedly picked up that line from her own association with the ex-gay movement in the 1990’s, when she ran a ministry called “The Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth” (SALT). The ex-gay spokesperson for SALT, Wade Richards was one of the “success stories” to come out of the Memphis-based ex-gay residential program Love In Action. It was also through O’Donnell that Richards also worked with Peter LaBarbera for a while. (Finding out that LaBarbera’s office was filled with porn and leather bondage gear, ostensibly for “research”, shook him up quite a bit.) Richards finally came to understand that the ex-gay myth was a dead end. He came out in 2000:

“What helped me really come to grips was that [O’Donnell’s] sister is an open lesbian and was living in L.A. and was in a long-term relationship and was working with a youth organization,” he says. “By hanging out with her, I saw, wow, she has a pretty normal life.” Being gay, he started to realize, needn’t condemn him to a life of seedy anonymous hookups, drug abuse, and nihilism.

After he came out, he never heard from O’Donnell again:

After that, he says, O’Donnell “totally turned her back on me. I never heard from her ever again. That’s been my experience with the Christian community in general. The minute I was struggling and saying, ‘Hey, listen, I don’t know really where I am with this,’ that’s when everyone really turned their back on me.”

This appears to be a common experience among ex-gay survivors, especially those who had served as spokespersons for the movement. Once they even begin to express doubts, they are completely disowned.

Meanwhile, O’Donnell’s vilification of gay people would continue. In 1997, O’Donnell said that the government was spending too much money on AIDS, calling homosexuality “a lifestyle which brings about this disease.” In 2000, she told Fox’s Hannity & Colmes that gays get away with too much: “They’re getting away with nudity! They’re getting away with lasciviousness! They’re getting away with perversion! …They’re getting away with blasphemy!”  And in this year’s primary campaign, she engaged in a bit of gay-bating against her Republican opponent, Mike Castle. She hired a firm that released an ad that accused Castle of cheating on his wife with a man, a charge that carried no evidence whatsoever. She also accused Castle of “un-manly tactics” and told him to “put his man-pants on.” I predict it won’t be long before we start hearing about pedophilia and bestiality as the campaign wears on.