Bravi for an impressive show of combined indignation at the perpetuation of the ban by impressive Senators. And a special thanks, as Levin acknowledged, to Kirsten Gillibrand for her heroic effort to push this forward even when she's not on the SASC herself!

I second David's urgency to contact your Senators [and Representatives because a parallel effort must be sustained in the House], and reiterate that your message to them must not just be "vote for repeal" but "vote for repeal before Nov. 2nd!"

Despite the moving joint press conference yesterday, we must not become too quickly complacent as so many did when phony repeat PHONY repeal "supporter" Secretary of Defense of DADT Gates did his bait ["Of course, I PERSONALLY support repeal."] and switch ["But Congress must NOT touch it until after our 'study' which, trust me, only accidentally won't be done until after midterms."].

By the comments yesterday of Gates' personal paid robotic shill, Geoff Morell, and of Gates' hand-picked lead of The Study [proving you don't have to be a "Bush Holdover" to be a homophobic jackass], as well as the anti-repeal testimony from the other Chiefs of Staff last week, it's clear the Gateswaffe is going to escalate their assault on repeal or a freeze before they can try to kill both by running out the clock to midterms and the swearing in of all the expected Repugs.

I seem to be the only person on the planet who remembers [including HIM] that Johnson was the guy Gates supposedly tasked EIGHT MONTHS ago with determining whether Gates had discretion re third party outings ["Operation Humane"], and who supposedly [and TOTALLY wrongly] told him "No," and yet YESTERDAY Johnson testified [we assume not under oath] to the House that he was STILL working on that question, and expected to have an answer in a couple of weeks.

Anyone who doesn't get that this history of Gates-centered self-contradictions [which remind one of Morell declaring last year that there were NO repeal discussions going on, and then, a few days later, claiming there WERE discussions going on...which now, we know, to be untrue in any meaningful way] and the idea that it takes an attorney 8 & 1/2 months to find the answer to a question a 12-yr. old with a dial up connection to Google could find in ten minutes proves why we cannot surrender AN INCH to them, they are a part of the problem and not the solution.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: Gates, who has stood in the doorway blocking repeal for years, is NOT suddenly on "our side." He may claim to be carrying out Obama's orders but are we to believe that Obama's orders are to stall repeal until repeal is legislatively impossible?

No, despite some good-hearted gays who WANT to believe otherwise, Mr. Gates is more an Antigay Mafia front, and, they, as comments by Repug Reps demonstrated yesterday, have drawn up their dishonest STOP REPEAL talking points, and can be expected to eventually have their own press conference with right wing loon Elaine Donnelly in a red, white, and blue cheerleader outfit and pom poms.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Mar 4, 2010 9:13:16 AM

Thank you for comprehending Micah 6:8 "And what does the Lord require of you, but to Do Justice, Love Kindness, and Walk Humbly with your God?"

Posted by: Lowell and Linda flom Raschke | Mar 4, 2010 11:27:30 PM

Repealing DADT is a good first step. But we also have to revise the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 125 of the code makes it a crime for anyone to have non-missionary sex with anyone else. Never mind that this makes it illegal for any soldier to get a BJ from his girlfriend or his wife (let alone anyone else), it has almost never been used except to hound LGBT servicemembers. As long as that article remains on the books, there will be a way for bigots in the military to get rid of LGBT servicemembers.

Posted by: Michael | Mar 5, 2010 9:45:21 AM

Repealing DADT is a good first step. But we also have to revise the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 125 of the code makes it a crime for anyone to have non-missionary sex with anyone else. Never mind that this makes it illegal for any soldier to get a BJ from his girlfriend or his wife (let alone anyone else), it has almost never been used except to hound LGBT servicemembers. As long as that article remains on the books, there will be a way for bigots in the military to get rid of LGBT servicemembers.

Posted by: Michael | Mar 5, 2010 9:45:31 AM

Call me neurotic [or worse] but I can never let stand misrepresentations of the facts even when I agree with the basic premise with which they're being miused.

Yes, at some point we must pursue a removal of Article 125 banning "sodomy" from the UCMJ.

However, describing it as being used to "hound LGBT servicemembers" involves a verb choice both exaggerated and irrational.

Even in the sometimes draconian world of so-called "military justice," there must be evidence/testimony presented that an "act" such as sodomy has been committed to secure a conviction.

That does not mean, anymore than it would in civilian courts, that false testimony/evidence cannot be concocted, but today no JAG attorney is going to ipso facto court martial a servicemember for violating 125 just because he/she has the belief/evidence that the person is gay [discharges simply for "being gay" haven't occurred through the court martial process for several decades; they are done, unless the servicemember resigns, through an administrative hearing].

And there is no reason to believe that post repeal of the ban on gays serving [the assertion that they can now as long as no one knows it is an anti-intellectual charade I refuse to play] a military investigation unit such as NCIS which, historically, has been nothing like the righteous, sometimes even gay-friendly, unit led by Mark Harmon on the widely popular Tuesday night show on CBS, is going to revert to their old rabidly antigay, hiding under the bed ways to find evidence.

In fact, with extremely rare exception, JAG attorneys have, for several years now, even against gays, only filed 125 charges as an enhancement of charges on other violations that DO motivate them to prosecute such as fraternization or sex on base.

In those cases, the charge is "prejudical sodomy." For those interested, I have written extensively about this, including describing various cases, both gay and nongay at

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12665/tanya-domi-when-will-lgbt-people-be-free

Mine is a more colloquial discussion based on the article, "Is Article 125, Sodomy, a Dead Letter in Light of Lawrence v. Texas?" in the "The Army Lawyer" at:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/01-2009.pdf

"Lawrence," of course, was the Supreme Court case legalizing civilian "sodomy."

In fact, we have a "celebrity" example of this pattern of aversion to prosecution for sodomy alone. Even though the Air Force was apparently coerced into initiating discharge proceedings against Victor Fehrenbach simply for "being gay" by the threats of the civilian he was compelled to admit having consensual sex with off base in order to defend himself against the man's accusation of rape, the Air Force did not charge VF with sodomy.

Nevertheless, it remains a Troglodytic law that we must eventually challenge in order to prevent prosecutorial violations of privacy.

While some, either well-intentioned on our side or malevolently by those against us, have brought it up in hearings about repealing DADT, I hope that our side has the sense to leave it alone for now as adding the "ick factor" to the discussion of stopping job discrimination can only work against us.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Mar 5, 2010 2:02:54 PM

John Aravosis called LOBBYING "Political Masturbation"

From the article:
Lobby Days are here! Sigh.

Over the next few weeks, a number of gay groups, and individuals, are organizing "lobby days." These are opportunities for the groups' members, and others, to visit congressional offices and lobby congressional staff on the issues of the day.
While I'm loathe to criticize what I'm sure is a worthwhile experience in civics and the benefits of participatory democracy, the dirty little secret in Washington is that lobby days don't really work. At least at the national level they never have. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a group of citizens coming to town and lobbying congress, and it having any significant effect whatsoever. It's just not the way the system works, unfortunately.

Remarkably, John is now admitting that lobbying in ineffective. When I made that observation on his website I was blocked. Just two weeks ago John was adamant that "lobbying was very effective." Did he change his mind or did somebody LOBBY him?

In the comments after this was posted, John actually said:

"I think, some of us would rather fix HRC than destroy it."

John must know HRC is a lobbying organization. He wants to FIX something that "doesn't work." How do you do that?

Link:http://gay.americablog.com/2010/03/political-masturbation-wont-get-dadt.html

Posted by: AndrewW | Mar 5, 2010 3:08:22 PM

Andrew, there were two calls for you today. First, Walgreen's: your haloperidol prescription is ready. Second: Safeway. They still want their shopping cart back.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Mar 5, 2010 9:32:24 PM

Repeal DOMA!

Posted by: David McKeag | Mar 10, 2010 12:11:10 AM