Pentagon Won't Let Gays On Their Planes

I used to think that George Bush, and all of his cronies, were ambivalent about things like gay marriage, abortion, and everything to do with Christ. I thought that they only brought up this stuff to rassle up some votes in the Bible belt. I mean, who could actually still discriminate in times like these? More than 50% of the population, sure, but who could actually do it when they're ostensibly somewhat educated?

Robert Gates has blown my hypothesis out the window.

from Politico

Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights if there is room for them and when it is "necessary for protocol purposes."

These fact-finding missions, which congressmen and women regularly go on, can include spouses. Now, that does not mean that Cindy would be strolling through a Baghdad market with Johnny McSame (even though it'd be safe enough! Right, Johnny??) but when it's a trip to, say, Europe, it is completely acceptable.

But when Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the only openly gay woman in congress, tried to bring her spouse on a fact-finding trip in Europe, the Pentagon balked. They said the fact that they weren't actually married (her home state is Wisconsin, where same-sex marriages are not recognized) made the trip against house rules.

Nancy Pelosi had to intervene. She called Robert Gates, who basically made an about-face and said it was a "one-time exception" and that all other "non-spouses" would be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Some may say that this is some sort of protection of the Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (thanks for that one, Bill). While I find the policy ridiculous and I feel that it should be banished, the reasons for the policy have absolutely NOTHING to do with a congresswoman's fact finding trip to Europe. After all, the rationale behind DADT has more to do with troop morale and sexual misconduct issues which would arise, because we all know how horny them gays are, right?? Right, Bush? Idiot.

Pelosi has been fighting for equal rights for same-sex couples in the State Department. She recently sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking for more sweeping reforms of the way travel is controlled.

Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Representative who is openly gay, feels that this policy has more to do with the Bush administration's tough stand on gay rights, specifically same-sex marriage.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), another openly gay lawmaker, believes the military’s initial refusal to let Azar fly with Baldwin has more to do with the Bush administration’s opposition to same-sex marriage than with the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.

"I think the military was following orders," Frank said. "I think the administration disapproves of same-sex marriage."

And you know what, Barney? I don't disagree.

•  Well If We Can Keep the AF Tied Up Fighting Gays

  maybe we can make it to November without our Christian warriors bomb bomb bombing Iran.

  by Gooserock on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM PDT

  •  heh

    the air force is already full of gays. it's a shame we can't be developed about this like the UK and Israel, among others.

    by terrypinder on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM PDT

•  Well

  I guess the passengers on Air Force One are exempt from this blacklisting?

  Air Force One is a DoD airplane...

  by citizen92 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM PDT

•  Beyond the lesbian/hate issue

  why are spouses/domestic partners going on "fact finding" missions to Europe?

  A few facts Tammy and her partner will find out:

  The food is really good.

  American money doesn't go far.

  The people are far better educated (though Tammy's district prob gives them a run for their money).

  Europe is a nice place to vacation.

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM PDT

  •  Because she can help

    Azar, an environmental attorney in Madison, has a deep background in public policy. Gov. Jim Doyle appointed her last March to the Public Service Commission, a state board that oversees local utilities and economic development.

    by jackbauer8393 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM PDT

    •  It's a vacation,

      with the taxpayers picking up the flight bill.  Azar is talented but she's not elected.

      And I'd say the same thing if an old white guy from the House took his trophy wife.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:07:08 AM PDT

      •  But that's not the issue

        It's a "right" that straight people have the gays do not, and an arbritary one, at that.

        by BoiseBlue on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:10:26 AM PDT

      •  It's still a problem

        because it's a double standard. If some congressman can bring his trophy wife, and a woman can't bring her partner, it's wrong. Period. Doesn't quite matter whether or not they SHOULD go.

        by jackbauer8393 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM PDT

        •  I never said Pelosi

          should not have written the letter.  She should have.

          But it's still a vacation flight funded through the public treasury.

          That's why my first post started "beyond."

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM PDT

          •  Did you here that?

            It just flew right over your head, obviously...

            by grndrush on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:50:35 AM PDT

            •  blah blah blah

              If members of the ruling class or their ideological sycophants want to take vacations to Europe they can pay for the flights themselves.

              by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:03:03 AM PDT

  •  some junkets are not junk

    Talk to Barney about his trips to Bosnia, Georgia, Korea, and less fun places of Africa.

    Sure, investigating the new federal building on Oahu is one thing, but I would rather that every congresscritter and senatwhore get out of the bloatway, and see the world. It is far larger, more complex, and educational, especially where they are not waited on hand and foot.

    by agnostic on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:12:29 AM PDT

•  lol

  gays have been flying on their planes for as long as we've been flying planes. Don't Ask Don't Tell is so stupid.

  by terrypinder on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM PDT

•  if these are house rules and not

  military regs, why case-by-case basis? why the need for precedent? i'd be curious if any rep ever brought along a SO or even a nonspousal family member. i seem to recall some rep bringing a daughter or son once on fact-finding mission to europe.

  by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM PDT

  •  According to the rules

    you can bring an "adult child"

    by jackbauer8393 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM PDT

    •  Hey, I am often an adult child

      the inner me wanting to come out.

      by agnostic on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi needs to step up to the plate and

    get a rules change implemented. The military is just implementing the House's own rules. If they had broken the rules to allow some Republican to bring his golf buddy along we'd be all over it. As long as the House rules don't allow non-spouses, or doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, this is bound to be the result.

    by davewill on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:48:59 AM PDT

•  Gays on a Plane ™

  I don't want no motherf***ing gays on my motherf***ing plane!"

  by DemocraticOz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:55:52 AM PDT

•  Rules

  If the House rules state "spouses", and make no provision for "domestic partners", then Gates had no choice under the rules but deny boarding to Congresswoman Baldwin's partner. Once Pelosi in her role as Speaker said it was okay, then it really was okay and Gates could acquiesce without being accused of permitting rule violations.

  The problem here is the rules and the law, not the Pentagon. First of all, the House rules on travel should allow domestic partners, not just spouses. Second of all, and more important, Ms Baldwin and her partner and all other gay couples should be allowed to marry, so there wouldn't have been any confusion in the first place. I suppose gay couples put up with this level of nonsense on an almost daily basis, and I'll be very glad when they don't have to do so.

  by Korkenzieher on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:03:25 AM PDT

  •  I think it's the Pentagon

    that's dragging their feet on this one.

    The Pentagon and the speaker’s office remain divided over what the Gates-Pelosi agreement means for member travel abroad. Pelosi’s office awaits a follow-up letter from Gates laying out new criteria for the congressional use of military airplanes, while the Pentagon argues this was one instance in which the speaker waived her own rules to create an exception for an individual lawmaker.

    And the word "spouse"... does that have a legal implication? They exchanged wedding vows. What's left but getting a piece of paper from your town hall?

    I agree, though. None of this confusion would be necessary if these idiots would just allow gay marriage.

    by jackbauer8393 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:16:10 AM PDT

•  The republican party

  is working hard at being irrelavant. With everything going on this country-they choose this as their battle. It corners the market on "asinine."

  by lyvwyr101 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:03:35 AM PDT

•  I'm hetero, and I'm pissed.

  goddamn this administration and all the miscreants mal-adjusted, draft-dodging preppy frat boys who are ruining this nation.

  Many years ago, an ex-girlfriend's twin brother was gay. He and I still get along great (she & I seldom speak) and more than once he told me he wished he could have stepped into her shoes. It was nothing to fear, nothing to shy away from, and nothing offensive. A compliment is just that. But I suspect that most of the administration would be calling the police on him, had he said that to any of them. Between their crazy religious members, spewing hatred and worse, and their neoconmen policies of war war, not jaw jaw, I am surprised that our nation has survived as well as it has for the past 7 long, dreary, insufferable years.

  by agnostic on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:06:21 AM PDT

•  Discrimination?

  I suppose it looks like that to some, but actually it's something far more corrosive and insidious.

  Were it discrimination, this would be one of its final acts before it died an unlamented death in the next few years/decades.

  But no, this evil is immortal... it's the zero-tolerance bureaucracy! You can't run from it, you can't hide from it, and they'd be doing this even if all of them were happily pro-gay. Why? Beats the hell out of me.

  It's the same attitude and mindset that will have a school nurse confiscate crutches from a kid because she didn't have a doctor's note for them, despite the fact that there's a cast on her leg. It's at the DMV. It's at the car impound. Schools. Colleges. Zoning boards and homeowner's associations.

  by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM PDT

•  DADT

  ranks right there with NAFTA as one of the worst pieces of junk cluttering the Clinton legacy.

  As a straight male veteran (US Navy '79-'85) I despised DOD's policies against gays even before I joined.  Their "security" and "morale" arguments never washed with me.  I knew many gays outside the service before I joined, and then many more inside after I joined.  In my personal experience, among the vast majority of us rank-and-file enlisted it simply was never the notion that gay service members were likely to be predatory or susceptible to blackmail.  As long as they did their jobs well, we just didn't really give a rip what they did off the job.  Their sex lives were their own business, and that was the end of the argument as far as we were concerned.

  Then, instead of doing the right thing and eliminating all discrimination against gays in the military, Bill Clinton puts in Don't Ask Don't Tell, and we know the result of that policy.  Further loss of good servicemembers in highly specialized positions, and more discrimination against gays in the military.  But now DOD had an excuse:  it was the fault of the gays themselves for openly declaring their homosexuality.  We told them not to, but they did it anyway, and now we have to kick them out.

  Gaaah!  Just another reminder why any more of the Clinton mindset in position at the White House is a bad idea against the better good of the country.

  by cn4st4datrees on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM PDT

  •  It's funny because

    DADT still entails a fallacy.

    You can't tell anyone that you're gay, but you can be openly straight. That alone is discrimination.

    It's a terrible situation because we're losing many good Arabic translators.

    by jackbauer8393 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:18:51 AM PDT

    •  Exactly so. n/t

      by cn4st4datrees on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM PDT

•  Bush is Bush

  No need to worry - He is only a part of a larger America that continues to need HATE in their lives.  Sad thing is, HATE against Gay Americans is not the limit.  We continue to struggle with race, religion, church-state, etc.

  by BronxBoy71 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:28:27 AM PDT

•  Problem is, first, you invite them on the plane,

  next thing you know they're committing lewd acts in the aisles and the bathroom.  Then the guys want to wear dresses and the women want to wear ties.  And then....they would come after your children and my children and convince them to commit such acts on airplanes everywhere.  And before you know it, 9-11, Part 2.

  by Shesk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM PDT