I’m naturally an optimist, but here is why I say this.  Yes, this has the potential to derail many of Obama’s plans, including health reform.  Oddly though, it seems that people have already forgotten what this administration has faced to date.  First, we relied on moderates like Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlen Specter for passage of the stimulus.  Then Specter switched parties which gave the Democrats “60″ votes.  How much good did that do?

When came time to debate health reform we faced Olympia Snowe’s central role in getting a bill out of the Finance Committee which fell short of what progressives had outlined.  Then what happened?  Democrats got Liebermaned (I think I’m coining that).  After that?   We were put in a full (Ben) Nelson.  As Matt Yglesias points out, even Democrats who didn’t cause problems for health reform obstruct other progressive policies.

My point is only that having 60 Senators caucusing with the Democrats has produced some less than desirable results.  I get the incredibly sad irony that it was Kennedy’s seat that is torpedoing the (relatively) comprehensive health reform we thought we had.  It’s also tough to see exactly what reforms will end up passing.  I’ll leave that to people who have a better whip count.  It will inevitably be less than I want, but it should still be something.

One other observation:

I’ve heard a lot of grumbling now that issues of LGBT rights have no chance of passing now.  I have to wonder though, what did the 60 vote supermajority get us before?  The Hate Crimes Bill passed with bipartisan support because it was folded into the defense authorizations bill.  Other than that?  We’re not looking at much success.  A repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?  Not passed.  The Employment Non-Discrimination Act?  Still waiting.

My point isn’t to say that it can’t get worse, so we shouldn’t bother.  My point is to say that we need to stop thinking of and describing some of these issues as “progressive” issues that will only pass when Democrats can drive it through.  The repeal of DADT is supported by a majority of Americans.  Further, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has bipartisan support in the Senate and House.  We may not get the leadership we’d hope for from the White House, should they decide to play it safe for the midterms, but it is not unfathomable to imagine it being pushed through without White House leadership.  Sure, support from Democrats is often easier than Republicans, but we shouldn’t completely write off all Republicans.  The pressure needs to be felt by Reid and Pelosi.  Will we get a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act?  No.  Could movement be made on DADT or ENDA?  I don’t think we should give up.

• From the Daily Beast, Sen. Gillibrand will be holding hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after she was encouraged to pull her Defense Appropriations amendment to halt dismissals under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for 18 months.
• Republican Members of Congress lie about what Hate Crimes means, claiming that it would limit the rights of religious figures to preach hate.  In reality, they can still preach hate, but can’t incite violence against those protected by Hate Crimes legislation.
• Harvey Milk will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously for being an “agent of change.”  Full list of recipients is here (including Sen. Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Conner, Sidney Poitier, Desmond Tutu and Billie Jean King).
• The House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce Issues passed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act by a 5 to 3 vote.  This is the bill that will broaden Obama’s early executive order extending benefits (health care and retirement benefits) to the partners of employees of the federal government.
• There is a bill in California to recognize same sex marriages from out of state.  Combined with the exisiting 18,000 married same sex couples, Prop 8 would be thorougly undermined, but still a horrible stain on California’s constitution.

“Civilian culture has changed, but the unique culture of the military has not changed.”

I love the argument that people who join the military aren’t able to progress with society.  I really don’t get how people aren’t more insulted by this.

One thing the article highlighted is the fact that Secretary Gates has said the Pentagon is looking into a more “humane” way to apply the law as it stands.  Yet, we’ve seen no action on this front, and in fact a White House representative asked Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) to withdraw an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would have cut off funding for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell investigations.

The Philadelphia Inquirer also has more on the story.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] – 3/17/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] – 3/12/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] – 6/16/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] – 3/3/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] – 3/3/2009
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] – 6/8/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] – 3/3/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] – 4/27/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] – 3/3/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] – 3/3/2009
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 3/3/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 3/3/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 4/27/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] – 3/3/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] – 3/6/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] – 3/3/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 3/3/2009
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] – 3/9/2009
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] – 3/3/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] – 4/2/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] – 3/3/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] – 3/3/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] – 3/3/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 3/3/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 3/3/2009
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] – 3/6/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] – 3/3/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 3/3/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] – 3/3/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 3/3/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] – 6/26/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] – 4/29/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 3/3/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 3/3/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 3/3/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 3/9/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] – 3/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] – 3/3/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] – 3/5/2009
Rep Kilroy, Mary Jo [OH-15] – 3/5/2009
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] – 6/9/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 3/3/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] – 6/23/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] – 3/3/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] – 3/3/2009
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] – 6/23/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] – 3/3/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 3/23/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 3/3/2009
Rep McMahon, Michael E. [NY-13] – 6/9/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] – 3/3/2009
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] – 3/3/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] – 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] – 3/3/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] – 3/3/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] – 3/3/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 3/3/2009
Rep Peters, Gary C. [MI-9] – 5/13/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 3/3/2009
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] – 3/3/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] – 6/2/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 3/17/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 3/3/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] – 3/3/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] – 3/3/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 3/3/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] – 3/3/2009
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] – 3/17/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] – 3/3/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 3/3/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] – 3/3/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] – 3/12/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] – 3/3/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/3/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 3/3/2009
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] – 3/3/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] – 3/17/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 3/3/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] – 3/3/2009
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] – 3/3/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] – 3/3/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] – 3/3/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] – 3/3/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] – 3/3/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 3/3/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 3/3/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] – 3/3/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 3/3/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 3/3/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] – 6/9/2009

Gutsy to do it in Iraq for the troops, but this is the guy who eviscerated Bush at the Correspondent’s Dinner.

“This is kind of like the abortion debate 30 years ago. Some states changed their laws; some didn’t,” said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, who counseled New Hampshire Republicans on the religious exclusion, and whose group is active in other state and federal cases.

“Does the Supreme Court come in with a Roe v. Wade trump card?” Lorence asked. “How this is all going to play out over time, I think the new Supreme Court nominee is going to be a factor . . . which makes it a legitimate area of questioning.”

The article focuses on the likely challenge to the “Defense of Marriage Act,” which allows states to ignore marriages performed in other states.  The article discusses how the hearings could be driven towards gay rights issues if Elena Kagan, a driving force behind the attempts to kick military recruiters off college campuses to protest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” is the President’s nominee.

However, they article doesn’t discuss if an openly gay nominee was put forward.  If Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan, both lesbians, were nominated, it would certainly change the dynamic of a hearing where conservatives are trying to focus on gay rights issues.  If the person being questioned on gay rights issues is gay, it humanizes the issue and becomes less of an abstract legal concept, and more of the personal attack it truly is.

Here’s the first problem with her logic (as Rep. Murphy points out in the clip below).  First, she thinks that people who will bravely risk their lives for our country aren’t brave enough to do it with people who are openly gay.  Also, that their parents who would support such brave men and women, wouldn’t do so if they were serving along side openly gay soldiers.  How is this not insulting to those who risk their lives everyday for our country, and to the families who support them unconditionally?

You may have noticed that I underlined the word openly twice.  Here’s the real problem with her logic.  She is defending an army that doesn’t exist.  The crux of this argument is that you can’t be a homosexual and serve in the military without undermining “unit cohesion” and ultimately a volunteer force.  However, the current policy allows gays and lesbians to serve, as long as they don’t tell the truth about who they are.  Donnelly’s argument below (regarding Cynthia Yost) is that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all (regardless of their openness).  The people Donnelly so loves to vilify are there fighting for our country day in and day out and our nation is still standing.  I’d even bet (with limited anecdotal evidence) that a lot of them are  aware of their colleagues’ sexual orientations.

This isn’t now–and never was–about the ability of gays and lesbians to serve.  This is about the bigotry of a few.  America has never been about dropping to the lowest common denominator (in this case the bigot who won’t protect their country if they have to be exposed to people they know are gay), and we shouldn’t pander to them now.  If someone is so afraid of gays and lesbians, maybe they should find a different career.  I promise you it won’t make our armed forces weaker to lose this handful of bigots.

Here is the report on Donnelly’s group of bigots, as reported by the AP.

“A statement issued by the retired officers Tuesday said passage of that bill ‘would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.’ Among the signatories were Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A. Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former vice chief of Naval Operations. The retired officers said they strongly supported the principle that ‘homosexuality is incompatible with military service’ and warned that repeal of current law could jeopardize morale and ‘unit cohesion.’”

If you want your blood to boil, just listen to her speak.  Especially when she says that proponents of repealing DADT have the mentality that if soldiers don’t like serving with gays and lesbians, then they should “just relax and enjoy it”–a not very clever allusion to a wildly offensive stereotype of gays and lesbians as predators.

What I find saddest about Joshua Hock’s op-ed (“The right decision,” March 2, p. 4) is not the premise that he argues, but rather the way in which the author views himself. This should not be a partisan issue – it’s so much more. This is an issue of self-respect.

Hock is lucky that he has grown up in a world and a culture (wherever he is from) where he could, from a young age, be open about his sexuality. What is so tragic is that he has no sense of what brought us to this moment. Here’s a hint: He walks safely as a gay man on campus because gay men and lesbians did not sit silently by as injustices and hate crimes were perpetrated based on sexuality.

He isn’t discriminated against in housing in D.C. because people weren’t silent about who they live with and love. He will never know the life of our predecessors who were fired for who they loved or, after years of marriage without the title, could not be with their dying partner in their last moments. Few things make me happier than the fact that Hock and I, a GW alumnus, will likely never know these challenges. Few things make me sadder than knowing that people like Hock don’t appreciate the progress the LGBT community has seen over the last 50 years and how it came about.

It was in part because of protests and demonstrations, but it was more because of men and women who bravely lived their lives openly and risked expulsion from jobs, service, families and entire communities. We in the LGBT community owe the rights we have obtained to those who have not lived in shame, but have lived their lives openly as themselves – exactly like Todd Belok and countless individuals before him. We should all strive to do the same. Indeed, I hope that Hock can someday see that living your life openly as yourself is not “parading” your sexuality.