• The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice today announced it would be appealing the decisions from Massachusetts (Gill v. Office of Personal Management) which found parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.  Appealing the choice makes no sense on any front, especially when you consider the improbability of success with any plan to stand by the Administration’s promise to repeal DOMA through legislative action.  Considering what a fight Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been, I challenge anyone to present a reasonable theory on how this could happen through Congress.
• A federal judge ruled today that all investigations and discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell must stop immediately.  The ruling was not stayed, which means the era of DADT is over…unless the Obama Administration should decide to resurrect it by appealing the decision by U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips.  Based on all previous rulings that have found for gay rights, one has to expect that the Department of Justice will appeal this.  If one were to believe that President Obama wants to keep his campaign promises of repealing DADT and DOMA and enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the step after appealing this decision would be to finally push for repeal.  If this makes no sense to you, you’re not alone.

“The National Defense Authorization Act is a good bill that is important for the overall health and well being of our forces, especially given the ongoing campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world,” White House spokesperson Shin Inouye said in a statement. “This legislation received bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the President hopes it receives similar bipartisan support in the Senate.”

Funny how at this crucial moment there is absolutely no acknowledgement that this is the make or break moment to repeal. No inspiring rhetoric. No comment at all.

It’s not just incredibly disappointing, it’s infuriating and sadly not shocking. With more than 75% of Americans supporting repeal, it shows a shocking lack of political backbone and is just plain baffling. Lots of people are to blame if the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell fails, and unfortunately it may be one of the few bipartisan efforts we’ll see this year.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, pointed out that the Pentagon has never been in the habit of surveying service members about personnel policies. He noted that President Harry Truman conducted no inquiries before racially integrating the military in 1948, nor were troops consulted in the 1970s when the service academies began accepting women or even as recently as within the past few years when the Navy decided to allow women to serve on submarines.

Having reviewed the survey, one question strikes me as way more ridiculous than most (including questions about “open bay showers”).

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your family feels about your military service be affected?

I’m a firm believer that 99% of the men and women who are serving would not waver in their commitment to fight for the US because they found out which of their colleagues are gay.  (Keeping in mind, the gay soldiers are already there.  DADT just operates on the premise that ignorance is bliss–if I don’t know for sure someone is gay, I won’t mind serving with them.)  While I think surveying on this is 100% wrong, I can concede that if you think this survey is a good idea, an obvious question to ask outright is if serving with openly gay soldiers would affect the likelihood one would re-enlist.  But are we really considering what the family of people who are serving with these men and women think?  I get the incredible burden that the families of soldiers face, but I don’t believe the thought of serving with gay people is one of them.

This is beyond ridiculous.  Without putting a hold on discharges under DADT, this process has seemingly offered no way for closeted soldiers to safely provide input on the policy, their service, their likelihood of re-enlisting, or the impact on their families.  But it does take into consideration speculation on how family members of straight soldiers might feel.

In a statement to the press, Alexander Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United described a few of the other flaws.

“Flawed aspects of the survey include the unnecessary use of terms that are known to be inflammatory and bias-inducing in social science research, such as the clinical term ‘homosexual;’ an overwhelming focus on the potential negative aspects of repeal and little or no inclusion of the potential positive aspects of repeal or the negative aspects of the current policy; the repeated and unusual suggestion that a co-worker or leader might need to ‘discuss’ appropriate behavior and conduct with gay and lesbian troops; and more.”

But once we stop laughing, we must remember that culture wars are called wars for a reason. For all the farcical shenanigans they can generate, they do inflict real casualties — both at the micro level, on the lives of ordinary people, and at the national level, where, as we’re seeing right now, a Supreme Court nominee’s entire record can be reduced to a poisonous and distorted debate over her stand on the single culture-war issue of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Rekers is no bit player in these wars. Though he’s not a household name, he should be. He’s the Zelig of homophobia, having played a significant role in many of the ugliest assaults on gay people and their civil rights over the last three decades…

Rich goes on to look at the Kagan nomination and the distortions of her history with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But the rear-guard remnants of the Rekers crowd are not going down without a fight, and their focus on Elena Kagan has been most revealing. There are many grounds to debate Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, wherever you are on the political spectrum. There are many questions about her views and record that remain unanswered. But from the get-go the preponderance of the debate on the right has been about her handling of military recruitment as dean at Harvard Law School. Here her history is unambiguous.

Despite her critics’ cries, Kagan never banned military recruitment of law students and never denigrated the military in word or deed. She followed Harvard’s existing (and unexceptional) antidiscrimination policy while a court battle played out over a Congressional act denying federal funds to universities barring military recruiters. She was so cautious — too cautious, I’d argue — that she did not join the majority of her own faculty in urging Harvard to sue the government over the funding law, limiting her action instead to the signing of an amicus brief.

It’s unclear exactly where that leaves the White House.  I can’t imagine the White House ever vetoing the Dept. of Defense Authorization over a policy change they publicly support, but the timeline will present something of a challenge.  From Eleveld’s piece:

A second source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the White House was partially in a bind based on an agreement White House officials had made with Defense Department officials earlier this year to let the Pentagon’s working group study reach completion before pushing for a repeal vote…

…White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has repeatedly declined to say whether the president favors legislative action this year.

But during an April briefing he said the president was committed to letting the working group complete its study.

“The president has set forward a process with the Joint — the chair of the Joint Chiefs and with the secretary of Defense to work through this issue,” he said.

Pressed on whether that study would have to be completed before legislative action was taken, Gibbs added, “Well, again — the House and the Senate are obviously a different branch of government. The president has a process and a proposal I think that he believes is the best way forward to seeing, again, the commitment that he’s made for many years in trying to — changing that law.”

• Constance McMillen, the Mississippi high school senior who was banned from her own prom if she brought her girlfriend, was dupped into attending a fake prom.  The other students invited to this fake prom?  Those with learning disabilities.  Pam Spaulding points out that this is not unlike what black students faced 40 years ago.
• Following a major legislative fail (that highlighted the cruelty of the legislation), the Oklahoma State House killed a bill to undo federal hate crimes legislation.
• Governor Baldacci, who was the second Governor to sign marriage equality into law, is hosting a fundraiser for Preble Street, the charity that lost funding for its support of marriage equality.
• The White House today distanced itself from the Department of Justice defense of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
• There continues to be confusion around the status of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  The Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, announced discharges wouldn’t be pursued…only to clarify that they would be.
• The Marriage Ref, a not-so-guilty pleasure of mine, is going to have its first gay couple.
• Jason Mraz joined the “We Give A Damn” campaign (worth a watch!).  Kudos.  Anna Paquin joined the campaign and revealed she’s bisexual.

• Senator Bennett’s effort derail the passage of the health reform reconciliation bill in the Senate by attaching an amendment that would have called for a vote on marriage equality in DC was derailed.  This hits on so many important issues–health reform, marriage equality, and the need for DC to be its own state.  Good news for Maine readers–Senators Snowe and Collins both broke from their party and voted against this effort.
• In a Q&A session today Sec. Gates clarified that the Congressional study is on HOW to repeal, not whether to repeal.
• Secretary Gates relaxed the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  The new regulations included raising the level of the personnel involved in different steps in the investigation and barred the use of information from lawyers, doctors, therapists and clergy.