Proud to Serve, by Jo Ann Santangelo
Yesterday news came out from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network(SLDN) that contrary to popularly reports, the ban on third party outings of LGB servicemembers was not entirely a thing of the past.
This is the latest in an oddly familiar pattern of big happy news announcements on DADT, followed by small—but critical—corrections. If you're not playing close attention, beyond the sweep of headlines, you've probably missed a lot. Some of us are paying close attention though, and there is an awful truth: repeal is far from the sure bet many people seem to think it is.
After the fold, what the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network said about third-party outings, some fact-checking on the some news that may have been reported in an overly optimistic manner and how we can keep the pressure on.
It's been widely reported and accepted that changes Secretary of Defense Robert Gates initiated put an end to "third-party outings." But Aaron Tax, SLDN's Legal Director statement released yesterday,corrects the record:
Despite mainstream media reports that service members can no longer be outed by "third parties," it’s important that the 66,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members understand that they can still be fired under DADT – even if outed by so called "third parties."
We recognize that the new DoD Instructions further define what "credible information from a reliable source" may mean, but based on SLDN’s preliminary analysis, we cannot guarantee that service members are protected.
The updated language does not change the fact that statements, acts, or same-sex marriage, are still grounds for discharge under DADT, including:
- A service member can still be fired if outed by his or her parents;
- A service member can still be fired for revealing his or her sexual orientation while making a statement to the police that would prevent or help solve a crime;
- A service member’s middle school teacher can still out the service member 10 years after he came out to her in social studies class;
- A service member can still be discharged if he reports that someone has threatened to kill him for being gay;
- A service member can still be fired for hugging someone of the same sex;
- A service member can still be fired for getting married; and
- A service member can still be fired for saying she would like to return from Iraq to care for her dying girlfriend.
SLDN can say that under the new Instructions, LGB service members can now safely talk to psychotherapists and clergy, in their professional capacities; safely talk to a medical professional in furtherance of medical treatment or a public health official in the course of a public health inquiry; and safely seek professional assistance for domestic or physical abuse.
While the psychotherapist, chaplain, and other medical professional protections might not greatly decrease the number of discharges under the law, the 66,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members serving in the US and deployed to war zones around the world can breathe a little more easily... The impact of the rest of the changes has yet to be seen.
But one thing remains the same. At the end of the day, until Congress changes the law, lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members will continue to be fired simply for who they are.
I applaud SLDN for underscoring the awful truth that DADT lives. And, perhaps out of gratitude, it was under-appreciated that Sec. Gates' announced changes were in reality, just a confirmation of another awful truth: until this change, LGB servicemembers could not even confide in their doctors, clergy or attorneys. To protect their right to serve the country, they were required to lie even within the relationships we revere as most sacred in our society. Much of the disclosures, if one where to think about it closely, were really an admission of about how anti-democratic, anti-American, and draconian the process has been: anonymous accusations, hearsay, testimony without oath. One must usually look back to Salem, MA or down to Gitmo to find people treated to such due process, and for the entirely victimless "crime" of being gay.
I understand the desire to hear good news and run with it. But as SLDN is pointing out, many servicemembers may not realize they're still at risk under the Obama administration's more "humane" DADT policy. On Feb. 9, the Huffington Post ran with the headline, "DADT Repeal Activist Lt. Dan Choi Recalled To Active Duty," but the awful truth was, it wasn't true. The correction "LT Dan Choi NOT Ordered Back to Active Duty," received a whole lot less notice, and unlike the original announcement, did not make the rec list at Daily Kos.
Last week, the headlines blared deliriously: "Army Secretary says Gates has placed a de facto moratorium on DADT discharges," but, it wasn't true, and it was fortunately walked back quickly. Let us hope no servicemembers irreparably destroyed their careers in the interim.
The point is not to harsh anyone's buzz, but to point out, disinformation can be dangerous for our servicemembers. And it can create dangerous levels of complacency about the necessity of full repeal, or it's prospects for passing, which are, at this point, not so good. The awful truth is there are only 26 Senators signed up as co-sponsors of the Senate bill.
The Senate hearings may go down as one of the more successful political PR campaigns in recent history. Admiral Michael Mullen's testimony was powerful and downright irrefutable:
"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity—theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on record at the Senate that the policy undermines the integrity of the institution. Exactly the same point Lt. Dan Choi made a year earlier when he said on the Rachel Maddow Show:
"It is an immoral code and goes up against every single principle that we were taught at West Point with our honor code. The honor code says a cadet will not lie, cheat, steal."
Both Admiral Mullen and Dan Choi make the same point: this policy is wrong. And that won't change no matter how "humanely" it is applied.
One of the few military leaders to speak against repeal, General Sheehan, created an international embarrassment when he blamed genocide on the gay troops, and after being soundly pummeled in the European press, he was forced to apologize to the Dutch(though not to the Senators he misled).
And, politically, response from the right was weak. The usual suspects were silent, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell. Sen. John McCain stepped up to present a petition, which after vetting seemed more of a laughing stock than a serious threat, given it had dead people as signatories.
But amid all this win in the public arena, it's a little puzzling that Democrats seem to be fumbling the ball. When the wind is at your back, it seems strange to hit the brakes. But, the awful truth may be, they just do not have the votes to repeal.
The current House Bill, H.R.1283has 191 co-sponsors including two Republicans; Anh ''Joseph'' Cao (LA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL). Lead sponsor Patrick Murphy, Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank have all gone on record that the votes are there, and it seems reasonable to presume they are correct.
It is the Senate (as always) that is far more troublesome. Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin as said he's afraid there aren't the votes in Congress for repeal to pass. He told Metro Weekly:
"My concern would be that the vote on ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' gets defeated.''
When asked if that meant the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman had concerns that such a vote would be defeated this year, Levin's response was blunt:
''Yeah, darn right I do.''
Many people think it will get through the Senate attached to the Senate Military Spending Budget, as Barney Frank said was the plan back in November 2009. But that's doesn't come free. It will have to pass through the Senate Armed Services Committee And here's another awful truth: only 5 out of 28 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are signed on to the repeal bill. Bay Windows reported Wednesday,it's expected it to hit that committee in May or June.
"We’re expecting some sort of movement on the bill in the Armed Services Committee in May or June," said DeeDee Edmondson, political director of LGBT advocacy group MassEquality.
That's soon. Really soon.
I created an infographic to illustrate exactly how far the Senate is from repeal, based on current sponsors (click to enlarge):
When creating it, an awful truth hit me. We don't even have the assurance it could avoid being voted out of the budget, should it magically become attached. It's 14 shy of the 40 vote threshold to thwart getting it voted out of budget. I was also struck by the names that were missing. This bill was introduced during the height of the healthcare reform war, so maybe a grace period was warranted, but it's over now. It's time to get them onboard. Where's Amy Klobuchar? How about Daniel Akakawho has a 100% rating from Human Right Campaignon LGBT issues? What's he waiting for?
Claire McCaskill? And Sen. McCaskell asked some tough questions at the Senate hearings and appeared to be a real ally. It's understandable she has a heavy evangelical voting block she's concerned about, but as a Armed Services Committee member, she doesn't get to sit this one out. Her vote is essential. Another key Senator is Jim Webb,of course. As a respected veteran, and a outsized personality, where he goes, others will follow.
And, frankly, we need some leadership from the President Barack Obama. Congress is being deferential to the Commander-in-Chief regarding the timeline for repeal, but by many accounts, the White House has not been co-operative about communicating with Congress. Barney Frank has been uncharacteristically critical of the White House of late. He's made several comments, flat-out declaring the "That’s because they don’t want it done this year, not because they want it done separately." Upon the uproar that created, he initially claimed the reporter made a mistake, then claimed he misspoke (guess Kerry Eleveld's tape recorder is in good working order). But even since, he's returned to that message, most recently On March 26, he said:
Following up on what he previously referred to as the ''ambiguous'' nature of the White House's support for a repeal this year, Rep. Frank said, ''They're ducking. Basically, yeah, they're not being supportive, and they're letting Gates be the spokesman, which is a great mistake.''
And the awful truth is, if the White House isn't onboard with voting on DADT repeal this year, the Congress won't do it. It seems clear. The White House needs to send a clear, unambiguous message to the Senate this is a fight they are going to have to pick up arms and take on. Otherwise, they will clearly not do so. Bottom line: Barney Frank and Joe Lieberman can't make Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill or the Nelsons do anything. But the President may be able to.
This may be bad news for Democrats. Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, tells the DC Agenda today of potential political consequences if the bills don’t advance in this Congress.
"I do think that there will be many LGBT Americans frustrated and disappointed if any of these [bills] don’t move," she said. "Even though we don’t have a pro-LGBT majority in the House and the Senate — this is our highest majority that we have and we need to obviously capitalize on the members that we have in the House and the Senate to pass legislation. So, in short, I do think that there will be anger in the community."
Herwitt said this anger would likely manifest itself in LGBT voters feeling disconnected from Congress and from the Obama administration.
This disconnect, Herwitt said, could affect political donations or discourage people from getting involved in re-election campaigns as well as "not door knocking, literature dropping, all that kind of stuff."
And that's another awful truth, that it isn't just a fringe element of the LGBT community that is feeling frustrated, marginalized and forgotten. HRC is (im)famously centrist. And if they're recognizing a problem, it's bad.
And while the left is dithering and complacent, the right is on the offensive already, The Washington Times published a piece Wedsnesday, KRISINGER: Fake 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' review? And they're doing what they do best. First, they cite faux science and ignore good science. Krisinger disingenuously offers the highly flawed Military Times reader surveyto support his argument, while ignoring VetVoice's scientific poll of Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, which is far more supportive of repeal than not.
All the while they reframe the argument. From the headline: "Fake 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' review?" to the concern troll questions:
So, is repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a foregone conclusion?...What would happen in December if the secretary's working group returns with its best military advice and recommends that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should remain in place?
Yes. Yes, it is a foregone conclusion. Was the candidate Obama unclear when he promised repeatedly on the campaign trail, and again in the State of the Union, "I will repeal don't ask, don't tell?" I'd direct the author to this statement before Congress on March 4, 2010:
Jeh Johnson, General Counsel for the Defense Department, told lawmakers the he's working under the assumption a repeal will take place, but maintains the year-long study is needed to make sure it's not disruptive to troops readiness or unit cohesion.
Krisinger, absent popular polling, absent military rebellion from the leaders or the troops, absent rebellion from the public, is still looking to walk the argument back. Which is why many of us said the study was pointless, superfluous, and an unnecessary stall that could endanger repeal. The country voted to move forward in 2008 and that guy that promised to repeal DADT won. The study isn't "fake" as Krisinger is now implying, in a preemptive attempt to discredit the entire repeal and keep us arguing about shower rooms. The study was always about HOW to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It was never about IF.
The only "if" is whether it happens this year, or later. Unfortunately the awful truth about "later" is it could mean never, at least for the LGB service members currently serving.
DEMOCRATS ON THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
Carl Levin, Michigan, Chairman
Robert Byrd,West Virginia
Joseph Lieberman,Connecticut
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Bill Nelson, Florida
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Jim Webb, Virginia
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Mark Udall,Colorado
Kay Hagan, North Carolina
Mark Begich, Alaska
Roland Burris, Illinois
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
Edward E. Kaufman, Delaware
REPUBLICANS ON THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
John McCain, Arizona, Ranking Member
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Thune,South Dakota
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
George LeMieux, Florida
Richard Burr, North Carolina
David Vitter,Louisiana
Susan Collins, Maine
Scott Brown, Massachusetts
Two tasks stand before this community, to get those Senators onboard. The names above will lead you directly to the Armed Service Committee member's contact pages. Other Senators can be contacted through Servicemember's Legal Defense Network's Senatorial email tool, which is here. Another list of all Senators can be found here.House reps can be found here.
Levin's email form from his Senate site accepts out of state of Michigan addresses. Urge him to attach the bill to the spending budget.
The other task is share the wealth of your information, here, in this comment thread. Who's missing? Who's gettable, who's a lost cause? Share strategies. One poster commented Webb was unlikely to respond to a email or phone blitz, but might be reachable through LGBT veterans reaching out face-to-face. These are good things to know.
• The video the diary opens with is by photographer, Jo Ann Santangelo, and I hope you take the 7 minutes to watch it. It's kind of a heartbreaker, and reminds us why we need to take on this battle. Santangelo has a series of veteran portraits you might like to check out,and is actively seeking LGBT veteransto add to her collection. Her work is featured in Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's Don't ask, don't tell story project.
• The Center for American Progress has an excellent article posted: Myth vs. Fact: Repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:Common Myths Debunked. A lot of good information about the common right wing talking points about troop moral, the potential "complications of repeal, recruitment and retention, and more. Heavily cited studies, evidence from our allies experience who have already put this issue to bed. They even provide a pdf file for download. Excellent resource for combating ignorance and demagoguery with facts.
• Sign Sen. Mark Udall's petition and become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the DADT repeal bill today.
• Please mark your calendars for the weekend of May 11. HRC and SLDN are joining forces for a lobbying push weekend. In particular, if you are a veteran. For more information, see HRC's page.
• Bonus tip to Californians: Lt. Dan Choi is speaking today at UC Mercadfrom 4 pm–7 pm.
This week's diary by Clarknt67, follow him on twitter @clarknt67
**************************************************************************************
The WGLB ActBlue page is up and active. The five winners were added in addition to an honorable mention. The first week NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was chosen with 33 out of a total of 78 votes. The second week Senator Barbara Boxer of California was selected with 13 of 52 votes. The third week we chose Ted Ankrum for Representative with 16 of 44 votes cast. The fourth week we selected Jennifer Brunner for US Senate in Ohio with 25 of 71 votes. And last week we selected Billy Kennedy for Representative from NC with 12 of 29 votes cast (running against lunatic Virginia Foxx). Elizabeth (Libby) Mitchell, running for Governor of ME, was added as honorary candidate. If any of these selected candidates end up in easy reelection bids, we will remove them from our ActBlue fundraising page so we can focus our efforts where they will make the greatest impact. Thanks.
*************************************************************************************
Have you signed our petition to encourage the World Cup organizers to honor Eudy Simelane and all of the South African women who have suffered "corrective rape" at the hands of homophobic thugs? The 2010 FIFA World Cup is being held in South Africa and Eudy was raped and murdered in part for her love of the game of soccer/football and in part for her living an open life as a lesbian. We're only at 131 signers to date. PLEASE take a second and add your voice!