Box Turtle Bulletin

Bee “Doesn’t See The Point” of Ethics Investigation

Arizona State Senate President Tim Bee (R-Tucson) rejected a request to appoint a bipartisan panel to investigate whether Republicans broke legislative rules when they improperly ended a filibuster attempt to vote on the same-sex marriage amendment:

“I don’t see the point in it,” Bee, a Tucson Republican, said Wednesday of the request to appoint an independent panel. “If I were to appoint a separate commission it wouldn’t have any authority other than to have a hearing.”

… Bee said, “I had concerns about the way that came down that night,” but he said he would leave the decision to the Ethics Committee. He said he was “absolutely not” involved in any plan to break Senate rules.

A Senate attorney has already concluded Senate Chairman Jack Harper (R-Surprise) violated the rules by cutting off the discussion. Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) filed a complaint to the Senate Ethics committee, which has agreed to discuss the issue on Monday.

Bee’s unethical performance in those final hours of the legislative session is a topic that he wishes would just go away. He’s currently running for Congress in District 8 against Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords.  In 2006, CD8 voted to defeat a proposed same-sex marraige ban 45.4% to 54.6%. That was a significantly wider margin than the statewide vote of 48.2% to 51.8%.

Press, Congressmen Skewer Donnelly’s Testimony

Elaine Donnelly’s ridiculous testimony yesterday before the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee continues to elicit expressions of disbelief throughout Washington. Speaking before the first hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 15 years, Donnelly set back the cause of excluding gays in the military and “torpedoe[d] her own ship,” according to Dana Milbank at The Washington Post:

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement “just bonkers” and “dumb,” and he called her claims about an HIV menace “inappropriate.” Said Snyder: “By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country.”

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), a veteran of the war in Iraq, called Donnelly’s words “an insult to me and many of the soldiers” by saying they “aren’t professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission.”

Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at [retired Navy Capt. Joan] Darrah and glared at Donnelly. “Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman’s sexual orientation, when it didn’t interfere one bit with her service?” Donnelly said something about “forced intimacy.” Donnelly returned to the case of “Cynthia Yost . . . assaulted by a group of lesbians.” She neglected to mention that the incident was alleged to have occurred in 1974.

Donnelly clearly seemed to unify lawmakers on both sides of the aisles against her. As Milbank pointed out, “It was tempting to think that Donnelly had been chosen by Democrats to sabotage the case against open military service for homosexuals.”

Donnelly wasn’t the only opponent of DADT to provide comic relief:

Donnelly was followed by [retired Army Sgt. Maj. Brian] Jones, a tough-talking businessman who suggested that the military’s tradition of “selfless service” would be undermined by gay men and lesbians. “In the military environment, team cohesion, morale and esprit de corps is a matter of life and death,” he said. His written statement spelled it “esprit decor”; it also warned of “a band of lesbians that harassed new females,” and noted his own military experience when “the only way to keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for body heat — which means skin to skin.”

Sally Kern Stopped With Loaded Gun

Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern (R-OKC), who made headlines last March for saying that gays were a bigger threat than terrorism, was stopped by state Capital security from bringing a handgun into the building. This is the second time in two months she had a weapon at the Capital. Kern attributed both breaches to “forgetfulness.”

Porno Pete Earns His Nickname

“Porno Pete” LaBarbera is at it again. He wrote a post in which he uses Catholic priestly celibacy as an argument against gays in the military. And you’d think that drawing a connection between the two would be the oddest thing you ever heard of, right?

Wrong. Here’s the graphic Porno Pete used to illustrate his post:

Jeremy Hooper decided to investigate:

So where does one even find this ad elsewhere on the Internet? Well after digging for about half an hour, the only place we could track it down is on a site called “Gay Pervs,” which is a links list to all kinds of porn sites…

And we weren’t able to pull it up through a Google Image search or something like that. You have to actually go to the link and “investigate” in order to bring up the banner.

That’s right. Porno Pete couldn’t just call it up on a search engine. He actually had to know about this web site ahead of time.

I have a feeling Porno Pete’s browser bookmarks are very, very interesting.

AZ Senate Panel To Hear Ethics Complaint

We reported last month about the egregious and blatant breach of Senate rules which led to the Arizona Senate’s vote to place an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. On Monday, State Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) filed an ethics complaint against Jack Harper (R-Surprise). While acting as Senate chairman, Harper ignored Senate rules to summarily stop a debate serving as a filibuster. Cheuvront’s complaint seeks an investigation and reprimand by the full Senate.

Today, the Ethics Committee’s chairman, Sen. Jay Tibshraeny (R-Chandler) declined to summarily dismiss the complaint, and will call on the full committee to decide whether to investigate the matter or drop it. The committee consists of two Democrats and two Republicans, in addition to Tibshraeny. A meeting was scheduled for Monday to decide whether to investigate or drop the complaint.

On June 27, Tibshraeny told fellow senators that he lamented a loss of decorum by the Senate. He has since said that his comments were generally directed and not specifically aimed at the controversy over Harper’s action as chairman.

Military Service Issue – Sixty Years Ago This Month

Today’s debates over “forced cohabitation” are not without historical comparisons.

On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.

The comparison was not lost on one witness today (CNN)

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, a black man who joined the Army when it was segregated, testified that the current treatment of gays and lesbians is similar to how African-Americans were treated before President Truman integrated the military in 1948.

“I know what it is like to be thought of as a second-class citizen, and I know what it is like to have your hard work dismissed because of what you are or what you look like,” Coleman said.

Earlier this year the House of Representatives honored the order ending segregation

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress to honorably and respectfully recognize the historic significance and to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of President Truman’s Executive Order 9981 signed on July 26, 1948 that declared it to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin thereby beginning the process of ending segregation in the United States Armed Forces.

Today former Secretary of State Colin Powell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others celebrated the 60th anniversary of the integration of U.S. Armed Forces in the Capitol Rotunda.

Donnelly Repeats Bogus Statistics to Congress

Today in Congressional Hearings on whether the Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy is effective or counter-productive, anti-gay activist Elaine Donnelly claimed that polls support her contention that military personnel don’t wish to serve with openly gay servicemen. The Army Times reports

Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy group that focuses on military personnel issues and a longtime opponent of gays in the military, said the annual Military Times poll of service members consistently shows that between 57 percent and 59 percent of service members oppose allowing gays to serve openly in uniform.

But the poll that Donnelly quotes is not a representative poll of service members. We analyzed Donnelly’s claims in February, and found the following:

Using the 2000 statistics of the Heath Status of the United States Army (and assuming that there is not a strong variance between services) we can compare the Military Times poll to the Army’s report of those who actually serve.

• Army average age – 28; MT poll participant average age – 37
• 44% of service members between 17 and 24; 7% of MT poll participants fell in this category
• 8% of army personnel are 40 or older; 41% of MT poll participants are 40 or older
• 51% of army personnel are married; 82% of MT poll participants are married

As the Military Times put it, “The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.”

In other words, this is NOT a poll of active service persons who are on the front lines eating, sleeping, and showering with their mates. In fact, only 2% of those polled lived in barracks. Unlike the Zogby poll, the Military Times poll is of those who have made the military their career.

Perhaps Donnelly isn’t edequately skilled to determine for herself that the Military Times poll is non-representative. Or perhaps she deliberately uses deception as a tool to advance her anti-gay agenda.

But in either case she should not be testifying before Congress.

Palm Center: Elaine Donnelly Not Qualified To Testify

The Palm Center has announced that the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy is set to publish a review of Elaine Donnelly’s 2007 article in the review. Donnelly, who is president of the Center for Military Readiness, opposes the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and was one of two witnesses testifying against repealing the military’s ban on gay servicemembers. According to Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, Donnelly’s testimony was drawn largely from her 2007 article which is “riddled with mistakes”:

“It’s unclear why Elaine Donnelly has a platform at all on this issue,” Belkin said. “She and her organization do no research.” Belkin noted, for example, that to bolster her point that the British military has been undermined by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, her article cites a single footnote which refers to five newspaper and radio stories, none of which have anything to do with gays in the military.

…

Donnelly’s article is riddled with other errors, including misidentifying the Palm Center as a Berkeley organization, misreading the evidence on gay service during wartime and misunderstanding the statistical methodology of demographic data on the prevalence of gays in the U.S. military, as well as the research methods used in assessing polling data and the financial costs of the ban on open gays.

Here is an example of Donnelly’s performance in Washington today:

[Hat tip: Alvin McEwen]

California Changes Prop 8 Ballot Language

The original title was “Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment”. Now it’s been changed for the better (PDF: 2 pages):

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

Now when Californians go to the polls, they have to think about how their vote may actually take away something that already exists.

You Know It’s Over…

… when the National Review — William F. Buckley, Jr.’s outfit — says “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t make sense.

Bratton Endorses Marriage Equality

Former New York and current Los Angeles Chief of Police William Bratton has endorsed gay marriage and given a donation to the efforts to fight against Proposition 8.

“The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Bratton said this week. “I see no reason why gays can’t pursue happiness through marriage.”

Update

It should be noted that Bratton ran for Mayor of New York as a Republican in 2000. Supporters of marriage equality can make a strong case that opposition to discrimination has bi-partisan support in California.

Laguna Beach Opposes Prop 8

Per the LA Times

The majority Republican City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose Proposition 8, intended to define marriage in California as between a man and a woman.

“Laguna has a live-and-let-live attitude,” said Councilwoman Toni Iseman, who recommended the action with Mayor Jane Egly. “We don’t tolerate diversity, we embrace diversity.”

Laguna Beach was – until recently – home of the oldest continuously operating gay bar in the west. But rising housing and living costs coupled with better commuting ability with greater Orange County has severely diminished the gay population of the beachside resort town – or at least those of lesser means. So the Boom Boom Room, like other gay mainstays, is no more.

It is encouraging to hear that the city maintains its commitment to gay equality despite the change in demographics.

Anderson County Teen Charged With False Report

Last week we noted a report from South Carolina about an un-named teen who was alledgedly beaten by his father with a baseball bat because he was gay. That teen, 18-year-old Dwight Clark Ables, accused his father of yelling and swinging a bat at him on July 13 after attending a gay pride festival. Ables also said his father forced him out of the house.

That teen has now been charged with filing a false report:

After conducting a thorough investigation and the lack of any forensic evidence to support the allegation of the assault, Dwight Clark Ables has been charged with 1 count of Filing a False Police report. He turned himself in today at the Anderson County Sheriff’s office,” read a press release from the Department’s Public Information Officer Suzanne Griffin.

Ables is currently being held at the Anderson County Detention Center where he awaits a bond hearing.

No One Wants “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell”

The “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” policy was a 1993 compromise between those who favored an all-out ban on gay service persons and those who favored a fully inclusive Military. It wasn’t much liked by either side at the time and is still not popular with either gays or anti-gays.

The anti-gay most visible on this issue is Elaine Donnelly, one of the two anti-gays scheduled to speak today in Congressional Hearings on the issue. Donnelly has long been opposed to the Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell compromise and claims that it is actually contrary to the wording of the law passed in 1993. Donnelly’s position is that there are no provisions for “not asking” and that therefore the Military should have a restrictive ban including witch-hunt efforts.

To reinforce that idea, anti-gays were passing out buttons today that said “Keep the LAW, not the DADT policy.”

What then are the likely outcomes of the hearings?

Return to a full ban on all gay servicepersons.
The arguments of Elaine Donnelly are a bit limited. They cannot rely on studies, comparison to other nations, or any other tangible evidence.

Donnelly has to rely on two arguments: that gays are icky, and that heterosexuals don’t want to be around gay people. Because of this, she claims, the Military would be harmed by allowing gay persons to serve openly.

Because gays are icky, other service persons would be distracted from their job. And because heterosexuals don’t want to be around gay people, they won’t sign up for service.

While these claims do speak to the issue of open v. closeted service, neither of these arguments is particularly germane to a return to a ban. And because a return to a full ban would likely be seen by the public as homophobic and hateful, there is not likely to be much of a push in this direction.

Retain Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell
This is the Military’s position, as expressed to the chairman of the hearings. However, the Military did not send anyone to the hearings to articulate that position. Further, they told the chairman that they would abide by congressional orders.

Since the termination of Joint Chairman Peter Pace, the opinions coming from the Pentegon about DADT have been tepid at most. The impression, to me at least, is that while the Military dislikes change in general, no one is fired up to keep DADT in place.

Retaining DADT is also the default position of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President. However, McCain’s support is couched in language that suggests a less-than-solid support for this position. Rather than state this position as his own, he defers to “senior military leaders”.

However, although there are few voices articulating support for the status quo, a position difficult to champion in either idealogical terms, this is by far the safest position for conservative or moderate legislators or either party.

Yes, the citizenry has come to the position where they want open service. And very few Senators or Congressmen openly state that gay servicepersons are incapable of serving their country well. But anti-gay sentiment is more more deeply felt than tolerance and while Americans don’t favor the policy, they aren’t rising up to demand its repeal.

As long as this issue is not brought up for a vote, no one needs to go on record as either opposing the Military, the populace, gay activists, or rightwing activists. Which probably explains why there has been no movement on this issue for 16 years in either Republican or Democratic controlled Congresses.

However, non-action may not be an option for much longer. Supporter in both parties are more vocal in their efforts to overturn this example of institutionalized discrimination. And the Congressional Hearings may indicate a willingness by Democratic Party leadership to allow Congress to readdress the issue.

As public opinion has shifted so far in favor of fully repealing the ban, and as more and more persons of expertise and experience have come to question is effectivity, legislators may find that they will need to take a stand and sooner rather than later.

Repealing the ban
This is the position favored by the citizens, a position that seems to cut across demographics.

It is also the position that seems to be enhanced with each new study, review, commentary, and observation. Over the past few years, a great many individuals and institutions that had been in opposition to full and open service have come to either reverse their thinking or to allow for reconsideration.

Most Democrats in Congress would find it difficult to vote to retain DADT. Even conservative pro-Military ex-servicemen Blue Dog Democrats like Congessman Patrick Murphy are skeptical about claims that servicemen are incapable of serving with their openly gay fellows.

Additionally, many Republican Congressmen will be hesitant to be seen to be too far out of the mainstream on this issue. As a majority of Republican voters favor lifting the ban, only the idealogues, or those who fear conservative activists, will feel pressured to take an anti-gay stance that is not popular with their constituents. Further, some Republicans may see this as a way to counterbalance their anti-marriage stance and appear reasonable and mainstream to the all-important Independent voters.

Although it may be a bit optimistic, I predict that a vote would result in nearly all Democrats favoring a reversal of the policy joined by a respectable number of Republicans.

Becoming Law
The question is whether new legislation allowing for open service would be signed by the President into law.

Were such a bill to pass under the current administration, I think it likely that President Bush would use his veto. Although this has been a President hesitant to veto legislation, he seems to make exceptions for law that would put gay citizens on an equal footing.

I think it also extremely likely that a President Obama would not hesitate to sign. He has been open in his support for gay servicepersons.

The question, at least to me, would be what a President McCain would do. Although he has spoken against changing policy, he has done so in a passive way, deferring to the expertise of others and avoiding taking a personal idealogical position. With enough Republican support, McCain might announce that “senior military advisors” don’t see the change in policy to be detrimental to Military effectiveness or unit cohesion and sign the bill. Alternately, he might feel endebted to the rightwing and might veto. At this point, I don’t think I can predict his action.

From 1993 to 2008: DADT and the House Armed Services Committee

Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee holds hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I’d like to be able to discuss the social science research relevant to the policy. However, there isn’t much to say that is new.

To be sure, new studies have been released that consider issues related to privacy, unit cohesion, and the experiences of other countries that have integrated sexual minorities into their militaries. But the conclusions of the newer research don’t differ much from those of past studies.

Thus, it seems appropriate to revisit a previous set of hearings in which the House Armed Services Committee heard about social science research relevant to military personnel policy. In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I reprint an excerpt of my own 1993 testimony before that Committee, and discuss the consistency in research findings during the past quarter century.

As in 1993, the real question today is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of antigay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy.