Playing Politics with People's Lives

I know I should be furious that the Senate blocked the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Tuesday.  I'm sure I'll be angry soon, but right now I'm just sad, terribly sad, that once again our government is playing politics with people's lives.  I haven't even been able to watch Rachel Maddow since the Congress blocked the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal.  I can't even hear my side talk about the issue.

Make no mistake about it: LGBT people are not the only ones to be used as pawns in this election year.  Immigrants, Muslims, women -- there's a litany of groups that have been exploited for political purposes.  And make no mistake about this: while Republicans may be the most egregious in using the disenfranchised for political gain, the Democrats also must share the blame.

We should all remember that President George Bush Sr., back in 1990, suspended the military ban on gay people during Operation Desert Storm.  That's right.  A Republican President simply signed a piece of paper that allowed LGBT people to serve.

For almost two years, the Democrats did nothing to repeal the DADT policy.  Until now.  It is not a coincidence that it was brought before Congress right before the elections.  There is a great "enthusiasm gap" between liberal and conservative voters this fall.  The conservatives are energized; the liberals are not.  The oldest political tool in the book is to energize the base when things look tough.  Bringing DADT before Congress now was meant to energize the base.  That is playing politics with people's lives.  The Democrats are guilty of this, even if less so than the Republicans.

We only have to look at Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts to see what leadership is around LGBT issues.  Within a year of becoming governor, he rallied lawmakers and leaders to keep the issue of gay marriage off the ballot.  He met with individuals.  He twisted arms.  He convinced lawmakers to do the right thing.

We need that sort of leadership now from President Obama.

I'll get angry soon, but right now I'm tired of anger.  But give me time.

Please don't say the G word

I mentioned this guy on Tuesday.  Rachel Maddow covered him Wednesday night in her usual perceptive yet understated way.

Day 4 of Dan Choi's Hunger Strike

via Joe.My.God

Dan Choi to embark on hunger strike

From Lt. Dan Choi, as quoted in towleroad:

Immediately following congressional mark-ups on the National Defense Authorization Act 2011, Captain James Pietrangelo and I will commence a fast in pursuit of Equality and Dignity. We have three demands of President Barack Obama.

DEMAND #1: End the Comprehensive Working Group "Study," which insults the dignity of all Americans.
DEMAND #2: End "Don't Ask Don't Tell" discharges forever.
DEMAND #3: Replace all discriminatory regulations in the military with a comprehensive non-discrimination policy. 

This action is not organized in the name of any organization.

Dan  Choi has been critical of the compromise that is now being debated, saying that it is a delaying tactic.  Yes, it certainly delays repeal.  As a matter of fact, there are even more stipulations for its repeal once the study by the Department of Defense is completed in December.  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated that the proposed legislation includes "very clear language" that gives senior leaders the final say in whether it's implemented.  So what if these senior leaders decide to say no?  The rebellion of military leaders against allowing LGBT people to serve in the Clinton years has left many folks skeptical of any possible deal.

As for me, I'll wait and see before forming an opinion.  If this compromise leads to a repeal of DADT in the very near future, then I'll applaud the efforts of this week.  But if it is delayed for any significant length of time, or if the repeal doesn't take effect, then you can count me in as someone who no longer trusts the Democratic Party or its leaders.

Today's letter to President Obama

May 27, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I served my country for over 30 years. I enlisted in the Army as a private and retired as a Major General. During that time, I saw a great deal of change in the Armed Forces. Racial segregation was ended in the ranks, women were recognized as equals and we moved to an all volunteer force.

My father was a laborer, my mother a domestic worker. I knew that there was no way I was headed for college. As a young Black Man I enlisted in the army long before President Truman desegregated the armed forces.

I served in segregated units (all Black) before being selected for Officers Candidate School. I then attended an integrated Leadership Academy and then Officers Candidate School which was also integrated. After graduation from OCS I was assigned to a combat arms unit for which I had been trained. I was reassigned to a service unit (Graves Registration) that was all Black.

The message was clear: It did not matter that I was qualified to serve in a combat arms unit that happen to be all white. It only mattered that I was Black.

Mr. President, I know what it is like to be thought of as second-class, and I know what it is like to have your hard work dismissed because of who you are or what you look like. I also know what a difference it made to me and others when President Truman eliminated segregation in the Armed Forces and placed qualification ahead of discrimination.

As a retired Army Commander, I also know how disruptive it is to remove a trained skilled member from a unit. In Korea, I had a Sergeant First Class in my unit who was gay. it was no secret. He was in charge of the unit’s communication. He was essential to our performance and our survival and he was dam good at his job. If I had to remove him, our unit’s effectiveness, as well as morale, most certainly would have been harmed.

Military leadership is about being able to constantly adapt to change, and I have seen the Army implement significant change and react to new directives since I enlisted. Perhaps the greatest military change is that we are now an all volunteer force. I cannot believe that we could have made that transition successfully if the services were still segregated or if the roles of women in the ranks had not been greatly expanded.

The services have, for the most part, kept pace with changes in American society as to matters of race and gender. Likewise, they must now keep pace with the changed attitude among the American people, especially younger generations, concerning sexual orientation. If they do not, military service will become a less viable option for more and more young people, and the quality of our forces will suffer. I suggest that the warriors of tomorrow will not want to become a part of an institution that does not respect their peers.

The men and women who volunteer to serve, especially in dangerous times, are the most important resource of our armed services. This includes the lesbian and gay troops who have served – and – are serving honorably. Just like their heterosexual service members, they risk their lives to defend our country. Our country owes it to them, and to all our troops to treat all who serve with respect and gratitude.

Our armed services believe in, and promote, the idea that one person can make a real difference. To commanders on the ground in Iraq, an Arabic linguist can make a difference. To a parent, whose son is bleeding on the battlefield, one lesbian nurse can make a difference.

You, too, Mr. President, can and will make a real difference here. You can make a difference in whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed this year, and whether implementation comes shortly thereafter.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Mr. President, do all you can; stand with us and work with us to end this denigration of our American values.

Respectfully,
Major General Vance Coleman
United States Army (Ret.)

Keep this tape on file

Keep this tape from Think Progress on file.  These are the George Wallaces, the bigots,  of history.  It's funny how when they speak of soldiers spilling blood, there's absolutely no understanding that some of those soldiers are gay.

Mark Bingham and John McCain

Mark Bingham might very well have saved John McCain's life.  At least that's what McCain said in Bingham's eulogy.  "I may very well owe my life to Mark," he said.  And he went further: "I love my country and I take pride in serving her.  But I cannot say that I love her more or as well as Mark Bingham did."

On Sepetember 11, 2001, Mark Bingham was one of the passengers   who stormed the cockpit on United Flight 93 and brought the plane down in Pennsylvania so that it would not crash into the Capitol or the White House.

He was a very brave man.  And John McCain, despite his effusive praise, would ask that Mark not serve in the United States Military.

Mark Bingham, a star rugby player, was gay.

It has been wrenching to see John McCain abandon his principles to be reelected senator of Arizona.  First it was his support of the "papers, please" law, something he never would have done earlier.  Now, not only is he opposing repeal of DADT, he demanded on Thursday that the hearings be televised.  He wants everyone to see him fighting like hell to keep LGBT people out of the military.  It's all posturing: he's running against a far right conservative, and he's doing everything he can to seem as conservative.  (He even recently claimed he was not "a maverick," a word he and Sarah Palin used endlessly in the presidential campaign.) He's using American lives to score political points.  He wants to woo conservatives on the backs of men like Mark Bingham and every other gay person in America.

Well, John McCain, it may work.  You may be able to right-wing your way to reelection.  You've spent millions of dollars to be reelected, but that doesn't compare to the price of your soul that you put up for sale.

Dan Choi speaks of the DADT compormise

While many LGBT organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign are praising the compromise on DADT, Dan Choi, discharged service member turned activist, has another view:




(via Pam's House Blend)

The Fierce Urgency of Now

It's safe to say that many LGBT bloggers are unhappy with the Obama Administration over its lack of leadership on DADT.  Sure, we were promised repeal in the State of the Union Address, but that repeal seems less and less likely by the day.  Here's a post from Pam's House Blend that seems to be a decent example of what I've been reading lately.  (Photo: the wonderful Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend.)
 
With today's official confirmation that Democrat Ike Skelton refuses to include "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal language in the House's Defense Authorization bill, and reports are coming that Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson too has joined Democrat Sen. Jim Webb, and Republican Scott Brown in ruling out repeal in 2010. Their reason? They are listening to Bush-appointee and Obama holdover, Democratic Administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' recommendation to not to attach repeal to the Senate version of the Defense Authorization Bill. To anyone playing close attention, repeal seems hopelessly handicapped in 2010.

And mostly, by the White House's complete and total lack of leadership. Because of Gates' unprecedented presumption to set the legislative calendar for Congress, and Obama's total silence and disengagement on the issue, it is undeniably the Democrats who are destroying hope for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for 2010.

They are telling our community as they always have: to wait.

Not acceptable.

This is not the bargain we made. This is not the "fierce urgency of now." I say to President Obama, we voted for you. Not George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense. We were expecting Change. And we expect you to keep the promises you made to our community. And we expect you to lead the Democrats, as the leader of the party.

Your complete and total lack of leadership on this issue is more than a disappointment, it is a betrayal.

It's time for the gay community-for the leaders of our national organizations-to come together, in total unity, and say with one voice: "We'll vote for you later."

Later. As in Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010.

In other words, you're on your own for midterms.

It's clear the carrot is not working. We've been donating, volunteering, and voting Democratic since time immemorial. We stood by the party in the hard times. We help them regain control of the House and the Senate in 2006. They've controlled both houses for over four years. But when did they get around to introducing a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill into the Senate? Oh that's right, March 2010, just two months ago. Wouldn't it have been good to have planned a little more in advanced? Wouldn't it have been smart to have introduced it earlier and built support internally before the clock started ticking down? Our civil rights are, apparently, the Democrat's afterthought.

Enough.

Until Democrats fear ticking off the LGBT community, they clearly will be feckless allies and fair weather friends who take us for granted and feel no inclination to reward us for our tireless devotion to keeping them in power.

Well, let them look at the prospect of midterms 2010, without our resources. No LGBT votes. None of our feet on the ground knocking on doors. Our pocketbooks sealed tight.

To be clear, I don't want the Republicans in charge of the Senate or the House anymore than anyone else. But it is the only stick we have in our arsenal to discipline the Democrats into doing what they promised, what is right. As the Courage Campaign noted today, the relationship has become hopelessly dysfunctional. They clearly need a spanking. It is no longer enough they be better than the GOP, they must actually be good.

And, as completely incompetent as the Obama administration has been in getting anything resembling "bi-partisanship" out of the GOP in the last 15 months, I wish them luck in 2010, contending with even an stronger GOP minorities or, god forbid, majorities.

Maybe when President Obama really contemplates that, he'll call off his dog, Secretary Gates. Maybe he'll be moved to pick up the phone and have a chat with Jim Webb and Ben Nelson and get them to do what's good for the party in November 2010. Maybe he'll do one of his famous bi-partisan reach arounds to Scott Brown?

Or maybe not. Maybe it's time for Democrats to feel a little hurt from the LGBT community. Maybe our little kiss-and-make-up sessions after the Democrats passed and signed DADT, and DOMA, have left the impression the LGBT community are a bunch of pushover pansies that will never fight back, no matter how many times the party betrays us.

It's time (way past time, really) for Human Rights Campaign, and every major LGBT organization to let a message be known, Obama and the Democrats have a proposal on the table:

    "President Obama and Secretary Gates must come out and endorse repeal this year. The leader of the party must bring Democrats in line to deliver on the promises he and the party have made to our community for years. Or every major LGBT organization will recommend LGBT Americans stay home during the midterm elections.

Yeah, we'll get around to helping you guys out again someday. On the same time frame you've been giving us for years: Later.

I find this divide between the LGBT community and President Obama very sad.  Yet I understand where it's coming from.  Many of the overtures to the LGBT community have been window dressing: cocktail parties, Easter Egg Hunts, a movie night for LGBT leaders.  These gestures are meant to placate while LGBT soldiers are being fired for who they are, LGBT couples find themselves unable to bury their loved ones, and the federal government continues its institutional discrimination.  Yes, the community is getting loud, angry and impatient.  But as we know, the Black Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed because of cocktail parties.  Please, Mr. Obama.  Remember the fierce urgency of now.

The latest letter to President Obama

 The latest "Letter from the Frontlines" urging President Obama to actively engage in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  It takes more than a mention on the State of the Union Address: 

May 17, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

    I am a proud Army veteran of the first Gulf War. You won't find anyone who loves this country more. I get chills and teary eyes, every time I hear the Pledge of Allegiance or The Star Spangled Banner. I've been known to call a business when I see them flying a tattered flag to let them know that if that's all the pride they have in the American flag, they should just take it down. I am also a proud lesbian.

    I joined the military in 1989, before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) was enacted and when there was an outright ban on gays and lesbians in the military. I did not realize at the time that I was a lesbian, but later, when I did come to terms with my being gay, I never tried to hide it, but I did not flaunt it either.

    My sexual orientation was a non-issue. I was a hard charging soldier, promoted long before my peers. I am sure there was talk behind my back about me being a lesbian, but no one ever seemed to care. I was a good friend, soldier, and leader; everyone I encountered could have cared less about what happened in my private life. After DADT was passed, I started to hear stories about people being discharged. I struggled with this every day, always fearful that I would be next.

    Eventually, the stress of constant fear that I could lose my job no matter how hard I worked or how well I performed, became too much. I knew from the stories of others that even serving to the very best of my ability could cost me my job. I knew that an anonymous tip—by someone who was jealous of my success, angry with me because of a disagreement, or mad because I rebuffed a sexual advance—could trigger a demoralizing, demeaning investigation under DADT. And if I was not willing to lie, I knew an investigation could lead to my discharge.

    I was lucky, though. I did not get kicked out, but that does not mean that DADT didn’t affect me. The uncertainty and fear of knowing that anyone with a grudge could end my career, and the sadness in realizing that at any time my country could callously discard me for no other reason than the fact that I was gay, pressured me to give up the career I loved. I chose not to reenlist.

    There are days when it is hard for me not to walk into the nearest recruiting station and sign back up. I watch what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and it's hard for me to think about not being there with the men and women I served with in the first Gulf War. I have to remind myself why I chose not to reenlist.

    Defending our country in uniform is one of the greatest privileges and responsibilities of being an American. Many people do not appreciate that; many take our freedoms for granted; and many do not choose to serve. We cannot afford to lose those who want to serve, who have the necessary skills and work ethic, and who would risk their lives for their comrades and their country.

    Mr. President, in your State of the Union Address, you said that the American people are not quitters. I did not quit on my country during the first Gulf War and I would serve again if called. There are at least 66,000 gays and lesbians serving right now who do not want to quit, either. Mr. President, please don’t quit on them. Please do everything in your power to end DADT this year. We are counting on you.

    Respectfully,


    Former Sgt. Shonda Garrison
    United States Army

Will someone please step in and take the lead here?

This is getting ridiculous.  We need someone  to say "DADT is over.  Period."  Instead we get anonymous polling as reported in this story from The Advocate:

Army Secretary John McHugh announced authorities are considering a system to allow soldiers to anonymously submit their views on gays serving openly in the military.

"We're trying to do this in the quietest way possible, and by that, I simply mean not to sensationalize it, to try to really assess the soldiers' opinions," McHugh said at Hawaii's Schofield Barracks, according to the Associated Press "Anonymity, of course, is an important aspect."

The Defense Department's recommendation on implementing the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is expected to be delivered by December 1. Due to the current law, soldiers cannot speak candidly about their sexual orientation without facing the risk of discharge.

McHugh made the announcement with Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, who expressed his support of the ban on gay troops in a March 8 letter to Stars and Stripes newspaper.

"I suspect many service members, their families, veterans, and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen's desire to serve and acceptable conduct," Mixon wrote. 

He reportedly did not say anything at Friday's announcement.

One thing I still don't understand.  If DADT is to be repealed this year, as promised by the President, why the need for surveys to see if it should be repealed?

A moving letter from Harry Truman's grandson to President Obama

Here's another letter in the campaign to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.

May 7, 2010
Truman Family

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Tomorrow, my family and I will mark the 126th anniversary of my grandfather President Harry Truman’s birthday. There are many reasons we celebrate his life and contributions to our nation, but in particular we are proud of his decision to desegregate the U.S. Armed Forces in July 1948, which paved the way for future civil rights advancements.

It was not easy. He faced fierce opposition from inside and outside the military. Many, including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Omar Bradley, argued that mixing black and white soldiers would destroy the Army.

My grandfather, however, was appalled that African-American service members had been beaten and lynched upon their return home from fighting in World War II. They had risked their lives to defend our nation, but were denied the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. Implementation of his order to desegregate wasn’t easy, but it made our military stronger and our nation a brighter beacon of democracy.

There are strong parallels between the desegregation of the military and the debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law that mandates the firing of a service member based solely on his or her sexual orientation. Opponents argue that allowing openly gay and lesbian service members to serve alongside their heterosexual comrades will endanger discipline and morale.

While I have no idea where my grandfather would stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I do know that he admired service and sacrifice. An estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coastguardsmen are willingly risking their lives to defend our nation, despite being treated as second class citizens.

I would hope that my grandfather would want his openly gay great-granddaughter and others like her to have the opportunity to serve the country they love with dignity and integrity.

Mr. President, as you have said many times, including in your State of the Union Address earlier this year, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the right thing to do. This year is the right time to do it.

I commend you for your commitment and hope the example of my grandfather, Harry Truman, will help you lead with the same courage and conviction to ensure the "equality of treatment and opportunity for all who serve our nation’s defense.”

Respectfully,
Clifton Truman Daniel

Another letter to the President

May 4, 2010
President Barack H. Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,

They called me "vapor" --

As a little boy, I always had an interest in serving in the U.S. military. Both my grandfathers served in the Korean conflict, an uncle in Vietnam and I soon became the first of my generation to serve, followed by my brother and a few of my cousins.

After entering the Air Force in February of 2001, I eventually was promoted to Staff Sergeant. Although successful in my job as a Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) technician, I was still coming to terms of being a gay man.

I struggled with my faith that told me it was a sin. I couldn't talk to the Chaplain Corps because I had read about gays being discharged after coming out to a chaplain. And so, I continued to internalize my struggle with accepting myself, my faith and how I must live under "don’t ask, don’t tell."

As my separation date approached, many of my supervisors offered career-counseling. They all said the same thing: "Tony, you need to consider re-enlisting. You are the kind of Airman that the USAF needs to retain. You have a bright future in the Air Force and it would be a great loss to see you leave."

They often times would ask why I wanted to leave, and I always replied: "I don't like wearing hats."
Eventually, I changed my mind and was able to better manage living under DADT. I applied for cross training into C-130 Loadmaster and was accepted. I figured the high ops-tempo; frequent deployments and lack of down time would make for a great environment to keep me so busy that I just wouldn't have time to be gay.

I thought it was a brilliant plan.

As a distinguished graduate from Loadmaster training, I quickly established myself as a top-notch troop with the 37th Airlift Squadron at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. Within four months of my arrival, I had completed my upgrade training and was mission ready. I deployed to Ali Al Salem, Kuwait, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

But deployment can take its toll. I couldn’t lie to my fellow troops -- my friends -- anymore. I delayed coming out as to not compromise our mission and waited until we returned to Germany. At first, I ended up avoiding them as much as possible.

They nicknamed me "vapor" -- as soon as we hit the ground, I would disappear.
I didn't avoid them because I didn't like them, I avoided them because I respected them enough to not have to lie and burden them with my secret.

When I arrived in Germany, I sent an email to my First Sergeant to tell him I wanted to speak with my commander about being gay and not wanting to abide by DADT any longer. My commander said I served honorably and they would be there to support me in my transition back to civilian life.
Each one of my past supervisors from the ranks of E7 to E9 wrote character reference letters that requested my retention. My commander and First Sergeant said my character, performance and honorable service was not at question…it was merely a legal matter.

Upon my discharge, I was hired by global contractor KBR to fill a technical position in Iraq and later in Bagram, Afghanistan. I was once again working with the same Airmen I had worked for on active duty, but this time openly gay. No one had a problem.

I continue to work side by side with members of our military – each of them knowing me as a gay man -- and it has caused no impact on the mission. My contracting job for the Department of Defense now is the same job I performed when I was in uniform.

Mr. President, we need you to help repeal this law – this year -- so that my comrades continue to work in a force that retains the best and brightest based on performance rather than sexual orientation. Our men and women in the military deserve better. Listen to them, and, please, sir, do not turn your back on us.

Very Respectfully,
Former SSgt. Anthony Loverde United States Air Force

A Must-Read Letter

This is the second in a series of letters to President Obama written by LGBT members or former members of the armed forces.  I will publish more as they are available.


May 3, 2010

Joseph Christopher Rocha

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

After the recent letter by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be delayed, this is my plea to you on the behalf of the soldiers serving in silence to end this law now:

I never wanted anything more in my life than to be a career officer. My entire childhood I was exposed to abuse, violence, and crime. I came out of it all with a simple, yet overwhelming desire to serve. When my first attempt at getting into the Naval Academy failed, I waited restlessly until I turned eighteen. I enlisted on my birthday and set off to prove myself to the Academy. I was eager to leave the cruelty of my past and join a true family.

I knew I was gay, but it was irrelevant to me then. I was determined to join an elite team of handlers working with dogs trained to detect explosives. As I studied hard to pass exams and complete training, I was convinced that the current law would protect me. I knew that based on merit and achievement I would excel in the military.

I never told anyone I was gay. But a year and a half later while serving in the Middle East, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, as they had their suspicions. The irony of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply.

Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.

On one day in the Middle East, I was ordered by a superior to get down on my hands and knees and simulate oral sex on a person working in the kennel. We were supposed to pretend that we were in our bedroom and that the dogs were catching us in the act. Over and over, with each of the dogs in our unit, I was forced to endure this scenario.

I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. Frankly, as we continue to delay the repeal of this horrible law, I can’t help but wonder how many people find themselves in similar, despicable situations and remain silent. My anger today doesn’t come from the abuse, but rather from the inhumanity of a standing law that allowed for it.

Three and a half years later when the Navy started investigating claims of hazing, I had finally earned my place at the Naval Academy Preparatory School. But instead of celebration, I began to question the life of persecution, degradation, and dishonor DADT had forced on me. I questioned the institution -- our great military -- that would condone and endorse this kind of treatment of its own members. The only thing I had ever done wrong was to want the same thing my straight counterparts wanted: a brotherhood and something to stand for.

At NAPS I realized that a career of service under DADT would be a forfeiture of my basic human rights. It would be a forfeiture of basic job security, peace of mind, and meaningful relationships, particularly with my fellow straight service members whom I was forced to deceive and betray.

After completing a six-week officer candidate boot camp, my commanders said they wanted to offer me a leadership role. But after what happened in the Middle East and even the suicide of my close friend, I was mentally and emotionally depleted. And so -- with my knees buckling -- I offered my statement of resignation in writing:

"I am a homosexual. I deeply regret that my personal feelings are not compatible with Naval regulations or policy. I am proud of my service and had hoped I would be able to serve the Navy and the country for my entire career. However, the principles of honor, courage and commitment mean I must be honest with myself, courageous in my beliefs, and committed in my action. I understand that this statement will be used to end my Naval career."

They say some people are just born designed for military service. It‘s the way we are wired, and the only thing that makes us happy. For too many of us, it‘s the only family we ever had. I am sure now, more than ever, after all the loss and hardship under DADT, that all I want to do is serve as a career military officer.

Mr. President, any delay in repeal is a clear signal to our troops that their gay brothers and sisters in arms are not equal to them. I plead that you take the lead -- fight for repeal -- and allow qualified men and women to serve their country.

Very respectfully,

Joseph Christopher Rocha
Former Petty Officer Third Class, U.S. Navy

Enough is enough...the time is now.

I think the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is not getting clearer since President Obama announced during his State if the Union Address.  It's getting murkier.  And the murkier it gets, the more lives it ruins.


Take what happened last week, for example.  Last week, John McHugh, the secretary of the US Army, announced that there would be a moratorium on dismissing soldiers because they were LBGT.   He soon had to backtrack from this statement.  Writes a blogger at gaysocialites.com, "This public apology from McHugh adds to the confusion currently circulating around the military's ban on gay service members.  While most military leaders seem to support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", it still has be approved by Congress."

We need presidential leadership on this issue.  Barney Frank has become skeptical that the DADT policy will be repealed this year.  Many bloggers agree with him, and are requesting that folks don't donate to the Democratic Party (Don't Ask, Don't Give, they say).  I hope they are wrong.  President Obama showed extraordinary leadership during the health care debate.  Repealing DADT is nowhere near as controversial, and he might even get a few Republicans to sign on to boot.

Another retired general comes out for repeal of DADT

Thanks to think progress for bringing this to my attention.

Gone Psycho

Towleroad is reporting that Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway said that he wants separate barracks for gay troops. "I would not ask our Marines to live with someone that is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it," he said.

Okay.  A few things:

1. It's happening now.  Straight and gay guys are living together.  Explain to me how it is different if people simply know who's gay.

2. As one blogger put it, what's next?   Separate drinking fountains and bathrooms?

3. Why do straight men assume that our number one objective in life is to get them in bed?  Stop flattering yourself, General Conway.


4. Notice the language here: our Marines vs. someone who is homosexual.  We get it, General.  Only straight men will be the real Marines under your command.  Just like only straight marriages are real in the eyes of Focus on the Family.

5. As Barney Frank once said, "I haven't seen so much fear over showers since Psycho."

Two Reasons to Believe

The level of discourse -- if we can even call it a discourse -- reached a new low this week when anti-health reform protesters yelled racial and homophobic slurs at our elected officials.  One member of Congress was spit at.

Yet two gay protesters this week showed us how to state a point without ever lowering oneself to these demoralizing tactics.

Lt. Dan Choi didn't call anyone a name when he handcuffed himself to the fence in front of the White House.  He didn't spit or swear.  He made his statement with poise and self-respect.  He also did something none of the other protesters did: he put his freedom on the line, knowing that he would be arrested.  And while some of the health care opponents were threatening the use of weapons if the bill passed, Choi, a soldier, never once resorted to violence. His didn't call anyone names even as a retired general ridiculously blamed the greatest massacre since World War II on gay soldiers.  Dan Choi just stood tall and spoke softly.  A class act, yes.  But also an effective act.

Constance McMillen is another LGBT person to be proud of.  Instead of showing up to the prom in her Mississippi High School with a boy, she wanted to be true to herself.  So she told the principal she was planning to attend with a girl.  Nothing doing, said the principal.  The school board called off the prom while the parents planned another one to which Constance McMillen isn't invited.  McMillen has a right to be furious, but that's not what we see when she's interviewed.  We see a centered, steady young person who quietly states her beliefs.  (Just look at the video below.) Another class act.  And she's been just as effective.

I've thought about these two often while watching the spit and the guns, the slurs and the violence of the anti- health reform folks.  And I couldn't be prouder that Lt. Dan Choi and Constance McMillen represent me and my aspirations for the country.

Gay soldiers responsible for massacre, says retired general

This story, reported by Voice of America, is pretty hard to take.  At the DADT hearings in Washington on Thursday, Retired US Marine General John Sheehen (left) blamed the inclusion of gays in the Dutch military for the slaughter of thousands of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995.

Senator Carl Levin (right), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, seemed confused by Sheenan's words.  According to Sheehan, after the Cold War, the Dutch, "declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military.  It included open homosexuality.  That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war."

What Sheehan failed to remember was that the Netherlands allowed gays to serve years before the fall of the former Soviet Union.

Still, Sheehan pushed full steam ahead.  Gays had weakened the military, he said, and the 400 Dutch peacekeeping forces were unable to stop the greatest military massacre since World War II.

Here's a snippet from the exchange between Levin and Sheehan: 

SHEEHAN: "That [Srebrenica] was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II."
LEVIN: "And did the Dutch leaders tell you it was because there were gay soldiers there?"
SHEEHAN: "It was a combination ..."
LEVIN: "Did they tell you [that gay soldiers were to blame], that is my question."
SHEEHAN: "Yes."
LEVIN: "They did?"
SHEEHAN: "They included that as part of the problem."

After the hearings, Dutch military officials expressed astonishment at Sheehan's statement.  The spokesman for the Netherlands Ministry of Defense, Roger van de Wetering, told VOA Sheehan's assertions are "total nonsense" and that he "cannot believe that a man of that rank is stating such a thing."  According to Voice of America, van de Wetering said that he had never heard Sheehan's allegation before from any source in the Netherlands or anywhere else.

Sheehan's testimony has been out of the mainstream.  Many of the nation's top military officials and commanders -- including those who previously supported or even drafted DADT -- have urged that the policy be repealed.

You can see a clip of the hearings below.

She didn't ask nor did she tell, but she was still discharged from the Air Force

Here's the sort of story that people who say DADT is working should read.  By all accounts, Jene Newsome was a model member of the Air Force.  She didn't disclose her sexual orientation to anyone she served with, nor did she let anyone know that she had married her female partner in Iowa.

Yet Jene Newsome has been discharged from the Air Force.  Why?  Last week the police in her South Dakota town came to her house looking for her wife in connection with a theft in Alaska.  While in the house, they came across their marriage certificate from Iowa.  So what did they do?  They immediately called Newsome's supervisors in the Air Force to let them know that she was a lesbian.  She was dishonorably discharged immediately.  She has joined the ACLU to file a complaint against the police department for invasion of privacy.

For his part, the police chief is defending the actions of his officers. Autostraddle.com quotes him as saying, "It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the licence, or not document the licence, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it.”

I guess it doesn't matter that Newsome was following the odious DADT policy to the letter.