Box Turtle Bulletin

Despite Protest Ban, Hundreds of Ugandans Call For Killing Gays

Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa defied a police ban against his planned “million man march” in support of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill scheduled for Wednesday by holding a quickly organized march in the city of Jinja yesterday.

Update: A reader in Uganda had provided us with a video clip of a news broadcast covering that march. But now, NTV’s Kenyan branch has posted the same report on their YouTube channel.

That Ssempa chose to defy the ban is interesting. Clearly, the ban on his planned demonstration for Kampala was ordered by the highest levels of government — one can rarely lose a bet on assuming such orders come directly from Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. He has acknowledged coming under intense international pressure to shelve the bill and may be looking for ways to turn down the pressure.

But Ssempa has been the bill’s strongest supporter, even going so far as to defend its proposed death penalty for gays and lesbians under certain circumstances. So Ssempa responded to the demonstration ban by moving his planned march from Kampala to Jinja, Uganda’s second largest city about 50 miles to the east. Was this an act of defiance to try to make it politically impossible for Museveni to block or moderate the draconian legislation? Or was this the result of an unspoken compromise which allows the government to appear democratic (even though it routinely outlaws opposition rallies at will throughout the country) while keeping its fingerprints off its bill?

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of the past year\’s anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Four Democrats join Iowa’s House Republicans in pointless anti-gay gesture

Last week the Republicans in the Iowa Senate went through the motions of pretending that they were going to pull an anti-gay marriage bill out of committee. Two Democrats joined them in their public demonstration of anti-gay activism.

Now the Republicans in the House have taken their stand. Four Democrats joined them: Dennis Black of Grinnell, Keith Kreiman of Bloomfield, Rich Olive of Story City and Joe Seng of Davenport all signed the petition.

Reserve Officers Association changes position on gay military service

The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) was founded in 1922 and granted a Congressional Charter in 1950 to “support and promote the development and execution of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate National Security.” They are an advocacy group representing military officers.

Shortly after the 1993 battle over open service in the military, ROA passed the following resolution:

Resolution No. 07-26
Federal Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

WHEREAS, Title 10, United States Code, Section 654, establishes a policy whereby homosexuals are currently permitted to serve in the Armed Forces under the misguided concept of “Don’t ask; Don’t tell; Don’t pursue”;

WHEREAS, the law further states that, “Pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of Congress to establish qualifications of service in the armed forces.” and further that, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces”; and

WHEREAS, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an Act of Congress, prohibits sodomy and other deviant behavior on the part of Armed Forces personnel, on duty, off duty, public or private, in uniform, and out of uniform, worldwide; and

WHEREAS, the special conditions and demands related to accomplishing military missions, especially in wartime, are uniquely distinct from the conditions which prevail in civilian society; and

WHEREAS, heterosexual Armed Forces personnel experience significant stress when forced to associate with known homosexuals in close quarters, lacking privacy, and during life and death situations; and

WHEREAS, the presence of homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces has been found to be detrimental to good order, morale, discipline, esprit de corps, recruiting, and retention, which are at the core of combat effectiveness; and

WHEREAS, service in the Armed Forces is a unique calling, entered into by those who meet and maintain stringent physical and mental requirements; and

WHEREAS, discrimination related to deviant behavior, sexual preference, and aberrant lifestyle must not be confused or equated with that based on gender, race, or religion; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urge the Congress to exclude homosexuals from induction, enlistment, commissioning, and continued service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

In other words, this group not only opposed service by gay personnel willing to serve in silence, they endorsed bold and blatant anti-gay discrimination in terms selected to indicate contempt and disdain. This position was renewed during National Conventions on June 12, 2004 and June 30, 2007.

However, as of last Wednesday, the ROA no longer sees same-sex attracted people as deviant homosexuals with aberrant lifestyles that cause stress and are detrimental to good order. Now they are gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military, and this endorsement of discrimination has been jettisoned.

From the ROA press release.

Members of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States voted Wednesday to rescind its previous call for complete exclusion of gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military.

The association also rejected by a two-thirds vote a proposal to endorse the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law, which allows gays and lesbians to serve, provided they keep silent about their sexual orientation.

Leaders were careful to note that they have not endorsed President Obama’s efforts to repeal the ban. They simply will take no position and cannot be used as a source by opponents of open gay service.

This decision is monumental. These include the “officers in the field” to whom Republicans claim to be deferring on this issue. This 63,000 member organization speaks not for the Pentagon, but for “all federally commissioned officers and warrant officers, and their spouses” with a special emphasis on the men and women in the Reserve Components, many of whom are now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Cheney supports Mullen’s DADT repeal efforts

In an interview the ABC’s This Week, Dick Cheney said that it is time to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

KARL: OK, “don’t ask/don’t tell” — you’re a former defense secretary — should this policy be repealed?

CHENEY: Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of “don’t ask/don’t tell,” when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Don Mullen — or Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think — my guess is the policy will be changed.

KARL: And do you think that’s a good thing? I mean, is it time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?

CHENEY: I think the society has moved on. I think it’s partly a generational question. I say, I’m reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they’re the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our — of our units, and that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they’re still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission?

When the chiefs come forward and say, “We think we can do it,” then it strikes me that it’s — it’s time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that.

This is not the first time that Cheney has indicated skepticism for anti-gay attitudes in the military. As early as 1991, Cheney (then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush) called the military policy that considers gay servicepersons a security risk is “a bit of an old chestnut.”

Some proud President days

When it comes to ensuring the equality of all citizens, especially gay citizens, it can seem that Presidents lag far behind legislators, judges, and society at large. It would be easy to compile a large litany of abuses that Presidents have heaped on the non-heterosexual community. But there have also been days in which Presidents took action that is laudable and to their credit. And, just some steps that I included because they amuse me.

Here are a few (but certainly not all) moments in which Presidents and our community interacted:
February 23, 1778 – Baron Friedrich von Steuben arrived to offer his services General George Washington (not yet President) and his Continental Army. Steuben was probably Washington’s best military asset, as he provided the training and structure that had been up until then missing from the Americans. Steuben’s methods would be utilized for the next century and a half. Although Washington officially did not tolerate homosexual acts (drumming out an officer caught in the act of, um, fraternizing), Steuben’s reputation – and accompaniment of handsome men – did not dissuade the General from placing him in authority. One could even suggest that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was the military policy from the start.

March 4, 1857 – President James Buchanan was sworn into office. Buchanan was a bachelor who had lived for 15 years with Alabama Senator William Rufus King (King had died in 1852, after serving as Vice President for less than a month). While evidence of the two as a couple is not overwhelmingly conclusive enough to convince those who are inclined to dismiss any historical inclusion of non-heterosexuality (the nieces of the two men burned their correspondences), contemporaries certainly seemed to think of them in this manner. Buchanan was our only bachelor President, a sin that would certainly be seen as a liability today.

March 5, 1861 – President Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office. While rumors about Lincoln were less pronounced than those about his predecessor, his space sharing was even more intimate than that of Buchanan. In his late 20’s he met Joshua Speed, moved in with him, and shared his bed for the next four years. The two exchanged flowery letters expressing devotion, and C. A. Tripp, in The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, argued that Lincoln was primarily same-sex attracted. Dissenters argue that sharing beds was common in an era in which beds were scarce. However, they are a bit less adamant about a shortage of beds in the White House when Lincoln shared his bed with David Derickson, his bodyguard, when Mary Todd Lincoln was away. Whether, indeed, Lincoln was primarily homosexual in orientation, he was certainly unconventional in his bed-mate patterns and worthy of mention.

November 1, 1978 – The Briggs Initiative was on the California ballot, for a November 7 vote. If passed, it would have banned gay man and women from working in California’s public schools. Ronald Reagan, the prior Governor and soon to be President, wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner opposing the bill, saying “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” This was an official follow-up on a September interview in which he expressed his opposition, and the timing of the editorial is closely associated with a massive shift from strong support to overwhelming opposition. In January 1981, the decorators for Nancy Reagan are the first known gay couple to spend the night in the White House.

January 20, 1993 – President Bill Clinton was sworn into office. Clinton was the first President elected with a campaign which included specific gay rights provisions and shortly into his term, Clinton sought to fulfill his promises by lifting the ban on open service of gay personnel. He ran into immediate opposition in Congress and ultimately signed off on the “compromise” that became Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, both of which still haunt us. But for a brief shining moment the world looked full of promise. In October 1997, Clinton nominated James Hormel, an openly gay man and significant contributor, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a year and a half of opposition from conservative Senators, Clinton employed a recess appointment in May 1999 and Hormel was sworn in the following month.

February 23, 1996 – Former President Jimmy Carter, writing in the LA Times, called for a rejection of “the politics of hate.” He stated, “We must make it clear that a platform of ‘I hate gay men and women’ is not a way to become president of the United States.” On April 5, 2004, in an interview with the American Prospect, he set himself in opposition to George Bush’s election campaign against same-sex couples. “I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don’t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.” In December of the following year, he reiterated, “My own belief is that there should be a distinction between so-called gay marriages, which I look upon as a possibility of a church- ordained blessing of God on a union, which I think should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time, that people who do have gay union in a court or in secular terms not relating to religion, should be treated with complete equality.”

September 18, 2001 – Michael Guest was sworn in as Ambassador to Romania. Unlike James Hormel, this George W. Bush appointment was based on civil service record and received Senate confirmation. This early in W’s first term, there was considerable optimism that he would oversee an inclusive administration.

October 29, 2001 – Reporter Deb Price ran an article based on an interview with former President Gerald Ford. To her surprise, Ford endorsed non-discrimination and declared that gay couples should have the same tax and Social Security rights as married heterosexuals. “I think they ought to be treated equally. Period.” That year Ford joined the Republican Unity Coalition, an organization dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party, thus becoming the only President to engage in pro-gay activism. Shortly before his 2006 death, Ford discussed with his Episcopal priest the divisions in the denomination over the place of gay congregants in the church. In his homily, his pastor noted, “He said he did not think (such inclusive steps) should be divisive for anyone who lived by the Great Commandments and the Great Commission — to love God and to love neighbor.” Ford was the only President who was not elected to any position by the American voters at large. He was sent to Congress by the people of Grand Rapids. After the resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, Ford was selected as a replacement based primarily on his reputation for honesty and integrity, and he become president upon the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The current President has promised to be a fierce advocate for our community. And history will advise us of the most favorable action that President Barack Obama will take in his administration. To date, we are thankful for statements made during the election cycle, for Bishop Robinson’s inaugural prayer, for several gay appointments, and for current efforts to reverse the ban on open service in the military. Let’s hope we have much for to celebrate next Presidents’ Day.

Undoubtedly, I’ve omitted several milestones, for which I apologize. Feel free to praise Presidents in the comments section (for today, let’s try and keep it to praise. We’ll start the criticism again tomorrow.)

Ex-Gay Leader Exposed As Wall Street Ex-Felon

Arthur Goldberg

Truth Win’s Out and South Florida Gay News teamed up for a joint investigation to learn that Arthur Goldberg, head of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), was convicted in 1989 of conspiracy to defraud the United States:

In 1989, Goldberg plead guilty in federal court in California and Illinois to three counts of wire and mail fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The accusations he admitted to include his participation as the engineer of a phony bond and investment scheme, which netted his Wall Street investment firm nearly $11 million in illegal fees.

The U.S. Attorney who handled the case at the time, K. William O’Connor, told the court at his sentencing that Goldberg’s crime was “a fraud of spectacular scope.”

The SEC banned Goldberg and his firm from ever selling securities again. In addition to his prison term, Goldberg was disbarred in both New Jersey and Connecticut. Despite that, he lists himself as a Doctor of Laws today on the website of NARTH.

He was found guilty of selling fake bonds to Guam and the city of East St. Louis. SFGN has more:

Goldberg was sentence to 18 months imprisonment in the Central District of California, which he served concurrently with an Illinois sentence imposed at the same time. It was followed by five years if supervised probation and a $100,000 fine, eventually paid on November 24, 1999.

K. William O’Connor, the U.S. attorney who put him away, said at his sentencing that Goldberg was “a man who habitually took advantage of people who were economically dependent upon him; that he did not hesitate to lie or cheat or cover up to achieve his criminal aims. His greed has caused incalculable harm…”

Golberg’s full name is Arthur Abba Goldberg. He was given the nickname of “Abba Dabba Do.” He dropped his middle name “Abba” when he founded JONAH in 2000, almost immediately after paying the last installment of his fine. In addition to his work in JONAH, he is also president of the umbrella ex-gay organization known as Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH). Member groups include the National Association of Reserach and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); Courage, a Catholic ex-gay ministry; Evergreen International, a Mormon ex-gay organization;Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation; and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).

South Florida Gay News has an exhaustive report, and Truth Win’s Out has posted newspaper articles from the 1980’s of the investigation and trial leading up to Goldberg’s conviction and sentencing.

Ugandan Police Block Demonstration to Support Anti-Gay Bill, Pro-Gay Conference Held In Secret

This could be seen as a positive development:

Box Turtle Podcast 2/13/2010

BTB contributors talk about the new “gay couples study” showing over half of participants are in “open” relationships — and the DADT repeal. Listen below or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (click here, then click “subscribe” in the iTunes window).

(One of our users suggested that we provide a direct link to the podcast audio. For those of you who want to download the audio directly, here it is.)

NH Rep. Nancy Elliot gives sex-ed lessons

On Tuesday, New Hampshire Representative Nancy Elliot decided that a discussion over repealing the state’s marriage equality law could be spiced up a bit by a little discussion about anal sex.

QUEERTY.COM nancy elliot new hampshire from Queerty on Vimeo.

Rep. Nancy Elliot: We heard in this hearing one of the people came to testify and they said that this is not normal. And I had to think about it a while. Y\’know, what are we talking about?

And so, I started thinking, and we\’re talking about taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man, and wiggling it around in excrement. And I had to think, I\’m not sure, would I allow that to be done to me? All of us, if something happened to you, would you let that happen to you?

Is that normal? Is that something that we want to portray as the same as the ‘one flesh union\’ between a man and a woman? I dunno.

Um, then, I started to think, I remember when we were having the testimony, people were saying that um, it was brought up that this would rise to the schools and I\’m thinking, “No, no. No no, that won\’t happen.”

Well I heard yesterday from a mother that in the fifth grade, in Nashua, they were giving um, they were given as part of their classroom instruction, naked pictures of two men showing presentation of anal sex.

Chairman David Cote: Representative Elliot, let\’s keep our discussion directly to the bill and not…

Elliot: This is directly to the bill!

Cuz, because we have made a marriage on same sex, they are now teaching it in the public schools. They are showing our fifth graders how they can actually perform this kind of sex.

And they are condoning, they are saying, “It\’s normal and this is something that you may want to try.” That is the context of the lesson, that this is something that you, as fifth graders, may want to try.

I see it as a real problem in our society. I see it as a real affront to our citizens that their children are suspected to this.

And so I think that it is important that we revisit what we did. We made a mistake. We should repeal it.

Oh, my.

It certainly would be newsworthy if ten year-olds were being encouraged to try anal sex. But it now appears that the telephone call that Nancy Elliot was talking about receiving may have occurred at some point when she forgot to wear her tinfoil hat. (Nashua Telegraph)

Superintendent Mark Conrad said that school officials have asked all elementary school principals about the claim. Conrad said there is no evidence to substantiate Elliott\’s comment and no parents have called to complain.

“We don\’t have any information that this has occurred,” Conrad said Friday.

Valentine’s Question: could you give it all up?

And after all the boys and the girls that we’ve been through,
Would you give it all up, could you give it all up, if I promise boy to you?

– Lady Gaga, Speechless

This Sunday is St. Valentine’s Day, a time for romance and love. And, perhaps, a time to reflect on the value of your relationship.

In a recent post, we analyzed the claims made about how half of gay marriages are not monogamous and found that the sample was not adequate to tell us anything whatsoever about gay marriages. But it did engender a lengthy and heated discussion about the prevalence of monogamy in the community. And various positions were argued from the perspective of the experiences of those opining.

As we saw, while the readership at Box Turtle Bulletin is very diverse, many readers experienced a very emotional connection to the commentary. Several shared their own relationship structure.

Which got me wondering: is your own perspective on monogamy set in stone? If your beloved came to you on Sunday and asked you to change your agreement, how flexible could you be?

If you strongly believe that an open relationship is healthier and that outside sexual release keeps you stronger, could you give it all up to please the one you love? And if you think that a relationship built on monogamy and fidelity is sacred and smart, how would you react to your Valentine if they expressed a desire, or even a need, to have extra-relationship experiences?

(Please be courteous to others and as respectful of their choices as you wish them to be of yours.)

Right-Wing Accuracy In Media: Abandoning freedom of speech and the press are a “natural reaction” to pro-gay “propagandizing”

We recently gave Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid (no relation) the LaBarbera Award for his endorsement of Uganda’s Kill Gays bill. To be clear, Cliff doesn’t endorse the bill in some “revised” version; he endorses the execution of gay Ugandans.

In a follow up to his extremist blood-lust, Cliff Kincaid reiterates his support and condemns conservative Republicans who find it too extreme.

Conservatives were shocked to see Coburn, a conservative leader and medical doctor, jump into bed with Feingold and Franken and other liberals to attack Uganda\’s legislative process and pro-family political leaders and activists.

Cliff’s article is riddled with inflammatory rhetoric and, at times, comical assertions. For example, he describes mid-19th Century despotic boy-king Mwanga as “a homosexual pedophile”, apparently not realizing that he was actually younger than all most of his victims, none of whom were young children. And he explained this bill in terms of Ugandans wishing to avoid what has happened in the US “in terms of disease and death brought on by the so-called sexual revolution”, never realizing that the AIDS prevalence in Uganda is at 5.4% amongst adults while in the United States it is less that 0.1%.

But what he says about the Church of Uganda’s activism on this issue is no laughing matter. We noted that the Church of Uganda’s call to “prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality” and to “prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle” was abhorrent to those who value freedom. However, Cliff said

The latter provision is an obvious means by which foreign-funded groups could be prohibited from propagandizing on Ugandan soil. It may not be consistent with Western notions of freedom of speech and press, but it represents a natural reaction to attempts by George Soros and his allies to change Ugandan laws in a pro-homosexual direction.

This is chilling language. It takes little imagination to see Cliff Kincaid and Accuracy in Media supporting the elimination of freedoms of speech and press in this nation were it justifiable by vilifying pro-homosexual propaganda.

Will Rhode Island consider marriage equality?

Gordon Fox, the majority leader in the Rhode Island House of Representatives has just been elected Speaker of the House. (Projo.com)

Gordon D. Fox was elected as the state’s first black and openly gay House Speaker, moments after West Warwick Democrat Willliam J. Murphy relinquished the helm on Thursday.

Murphy, a fellow Democrat, was an ardent foe of marriage equality and helped ensure that the issue never reached a vote on the floor. Fox was non-specific about any sort of time-frame, but it is clear that he favors marriage equality for the state.

He has been guarded about where he stands on some of the more volatile issues the 2010 legislature is likely to face, including casino gambling and gay marriage.

An openly gay man, Fox says he is “in a long-term relationship, but not officially married … When I get married, I would like to do it in my home state.”

Fox said he was reluctant to make a hard-and-fast commitment to bring the issue to the House floor for a vote after Murphy leaves, without “a lot of internal discussions.” But, “we should have equal marriage rights in Rhode Island … That would definitely be something on a personal level I would like to see.”

The decision may rest, in part, on the results of the upcoming gubernatorial elections. Fox may be reluctant to expend political capital if he fears that an equality bill would be vetoed. (SJ Merc)

Both Democrats running for governor and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an independent candidate, will publicly pledge to sign a gay marriage bill if elected, gay rights activists said Monday.

Attorney General Patrick Lynch and General Treasurer Frank Caprio, the Democrats, and Chafee have been invited to make their promise public at a Statehouse rally scheduled for March 3, said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

Kushnir said Republican candidate John Robitaille has not returned her calls, although Robitaille said he was never contacted by Kushnir’s group. He opposes gay marriage but would consider supporting a domestic partnership system for gay couples.

In any case, it is likely that Rhode Island will move in the direction of couples recognition in the fairly near future.

CBS News agrees that how you phrase the question on DADT determines the answer

Yesterday I took Peter Brown and the Quinnipiac poll to task for phrasing questions in a way that were likely to result in less-supportive positions on the open service of gay men and women in the military. Now CBS News has looked at polling and has concluded that simply using “homosexuals” instead of “gays and lesbians” can significantly impact the results.

I’m now going to grant Brown a little slack on what I believe was very poorly worded questioning and shoddy question order practices. At least he didn’t degrade his results by using “homosexuals”.

Baptist Press jumps on the “lack of gay monogamy” bandwagon

As expected, the irresponsible coverage of SF State University’s gay couples study by the New York Times continues to be trumpeted on anti-gay media. Today the Baptist Press picked up the story and ran with

Study showing lack of gay monogamy could impact nation’s marriage debate

About half of all male homosexual couples have sex outside of the relationship with the approval of the partner, according to a new study out of San Francisco that some say should have a dramatic impact on the nation’s debate over “gay marriage.”

Anti-gay activists are ready and willing to extrapolate from “couples” to “gay marriage” without even blushing.

“The study demonstrates clearly what we’ve been arguing: That gays bring a different definition to marriage,” Glenn T. Stanton, a sociologist who is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family, told Baptist Press. “And it’s not just a different definition that male and female become optional, but that monogamy becomes optional as well. They are coming into marriage with a wholly different view of marriage than anybody has — left, right, conservative, liberal…. They come in with that understanding of openness. These are people who come into marriage with a wholly different and really radical definition of what marriage is about.”

You can bet Stanton will use this as his leading point in his debates from now on.

(The claims made about the study are false. It does not show that “half of all male homosexual couples have sex outside of the relationship with the approval of the partner”.)

Quinnipiac poll on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – ask a biased question, get a meaningless answer

In the spring of 2002, Peter A. Brown assailed the mainstream media for being unfair. It was far too liberal and chuck full of bias.

So it is only fair, by Brown’s standards, to look and see if he has any bias in his writing and statements. For example, in 2007 when Brown warned that Democrats could be hurt by supporting gay rights or in 2009 when Brown claimed that reversing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could have enormous political risks for President Obama was there possible bias in his position?

Vincent Rossmeier certainly seemed to think so when he reviewed two polls on same-sex marriage, one of which was a Brown led Quinnipiac poll. As Rossmeier noted, how you ask a question will effect the answer that you get.

And this may be particularly true with Quinnipiac’s latest poll on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Here is how Peter Brown is selling the results:

Although on the surface the idea of ending “don\’t ask, don\’t tell” is a lot more popular with the American people than it was in 1993, it remains controversial despite the polling numbers.

Even though Mr. Obama now has the Pentagon brass on his side, a fight over allowing gays to serve openly will pit the president against conservatives and other former military leaders. They will argue that Mr. Obama, who never served in the armed forces, is trying to impose his views on the guys and gals in the trenches.

When Americans are asked about some of the details that might be involved with ending the current policy, they are somewhat less supportive of accommodating open homosexuals into the armed forces.

And Brown is right in that the results of his poll can be viewed in such a way as to find “controversy” about “accommodating open homosexuals”. But to get that “controversy”, the Quinnipiac had to word questions in a way that are hard to view as anything other than advocacy and push polling.

The Pentagon, which backed the change in congressional hearings last week, is studying several matters dealing with how to accommodate gays should the change be made. And on those questions the numbers are different than on the basic question.

Opponents of changing the law have long said that support for allowing gays to serve openly would drop once the American public understood some of the changes that might accompany it.

For instance, there is solid public support, 54%-38%, for restrictions on gay service personnel from showing their sexual orientation while on the job. Among military families, that ratio is 59%-33%.

There is also plurality opposition, 50%-43% for the Pentagon providing for the domestic partners of gay soldiers and sailors as they do for the spouses of straight service people. And by a narrow 46%-45%, voters don\’t think that heterosexual personnel should be required to share quarters with gays.

Really? I don’t think so.

First let’s look at how the poll is structured:

Questions 1 through 5 ask about demographics. OK so far.

Then questions 6 through 19 ask about opinions as to how President Obama is doing on foreign policy, in Afghanistan, whether we should be in Afghanistan, etc. The next four questions are about terrorism and whether foreign terrorists should be given civil rights, and the fears about the Christmas Day attacker.

Now that the respondent is warmed up on the fears and drama of our dangers and the uncertainties of military service, comes the questions about gays in the military. We are not provided with questions 24 through 31, but eventually along came

32. Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?

After that buildup, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that the answer was “No”. But even after reminding voters that they aren’t happy with Obama’s treatment of terrorists and bombers, 57% said the ban should be repealed (though 12% less than Gallup found eight months ago). Then 66% agreed that the currently policy is discrimination, 65% said that allowing gay troops would not not be divisive or hurt the ability of troops to fight effectively (despite the leading wording of the question), and virtually everyone agreed that the military should not aggressively pursue those revealed by a third party.

But then came Peter Brown’s “gotcha” questions:

36. Do you think gay military personnel should face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job or not?

I don’t even know what that means. Any restrictions?

Sure. Maybe. I guess whatever restrictions that apply to other personnel.

A better question might be: 36. Do you think gay military personnel should face the same restrictions on sexual expression as are currently applied to other service personnel or should they face additional restrictions?

37. Do you think the Pentagon should be responsible to provide for the domestic partners of gay personnel or not?

The Pentagon should be responsible?

The bias in that question is blatant. Obvious. Glaring.

Why didn’t Quinnipiac ask, “37. Should the domestic partners of gay personnel receive the same benefits as the spouses of heterosexual personnel or not?” Wouldn’t that have been a less biased question, especially since he falsely claims that this is what the results said? It might have received a mostly “not” response, but it would not have the built-in bias that Brown’s wording favored.

And finally

38. Do you think heterosexual military personnel should be required to share quarters with gay personnel or not?

Oooh, required to share!!

I guess this one could have been worse. Brown could have asked if wholesome God-fearing heterosexuals should be force to shower naked with avowed homosexual sex addicts. He could have used the phrase “bunk with” or talked about submarines.

But he did avoid the much more neutral “same housing” or “current quarters”. Ironically, while the military households surveyed were less likely to support the change, they did not oppose being “required to share quarters” any more than the population at large. Perhaps that’s because they know the housing realities and were not scared by Brown’s phrasing.

This poll adds little of real value to the conversation. We know that Americans support the change in policy across almost every demographic and Peter Brown’s efforts to try and downplay that support is of little consequence.

In fact, if there is one thing that Brown’s poll did tell us, it’s that the military families don’t buy the dog and pony show that anti-gays are using to scare Americans on this issue. Nor are they all “conservative young men who share the family values of Republicans”.

When asked about lifting the ban, Republicans in this poll were only 40% supportive as opposed to 48% in military households. And 44% of Republicans thought the change would be divisive while only 38% of military families agreed. This trend continued consistently.

And it also showed that if you want to manufacture “controversy” about “accommodating open homosexuals”, you can always use the highly biased polling methods of Peter A. Brown and Quinnipiac University.