• 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.

“It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life,” said Mehlman, now an executive vice-president with the New York City-based private equity firm, KKR. “Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I’ve told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they’ve been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that’s made me a happier and better person. It’s something I wish I had done years ago…

…Mehlman’s leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities — such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party’s platform (“Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country…”). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.

Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.

“It’s a legitimate question and one I understand,” Mehlman said. “I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally.” He asks of those who doubt his sincerity: “If they can’t offer support, at least offer understanding.”

More at The Atlantic

• First Jon Stewart nails the issue of the NYC Mosque
  

  “Should we build Catholic Churches next to playgrounds?”

• Then Colbert speaks on marriage equality in Mexico (and he tweeted: “Why does Mexico need gay marriage? We already have a gay Mexico– Spain.”).

Both are below.  The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

The Colbert Report

In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

I haven’t covered this yet, but it is possible that because the state of California refused to defend Prop 8 in court, and the defense was mounted by an outside party, that the 9th circuit might not hear an appeal (which would make Judge Walker final).  This stems from an issue of who has standing to challenge a ruling (the “Article III” reference).  It’s significant that the Court specifically requested a rebuttal to this issue from Prop 8 supporters, as it implies that they consider this to be a real issue.

A good explanation of the issue of standing is available at SCOTUSblog.

I really don’t get why this hasn’t offended more people and why it’s not used in campaigns against politicians who recite these ridiculous talking points.  Here’s McCollum’s response on gay foster parents (emphasis added):

Q: Should the law [allowing gay couples to serve as foster parents] be changed?

McCollum: I think that it would be advisable. I really do not think that we should have homosexuals guiding our children. I think that it’s a lifestyle that I don’t agree with. I realize a lot of people do. It’s my personal faith, religious faith, that I don’t believe that the people who do this should be raising our children. It’s not a natural thing. You need a mother and a father. You need a man and a woman. That’s what God intended.

The way that the sexual orientation of Judge Vaughn Walker — the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 last week — has been targeted and exploited by proponents of Prop 8 is not only an example of the ugly smear tactics of the theocratic thugs who call themselves Christians; it’s a testament to how easily the media is manipulated by the right into doing things about which editors and reporters claim to be staunchly opposed…

…Most [mainstream media] quoted the San Francisco Chronicle as the source, and often in the context of reporting on the attacks on Walker coming from the right-wing extremists who now claim his sexual orientation biased his decision.

So what exactly did the Chronicle say on the matter back in February? That it was an “open secret” that Walker was gay.

That’s it, folks. No sourcing of any kind — no witnesses, no former or current boyfriend, no person who Walker confided in, no comment from Walker. Just an “open secret.” Gee, there are many Hollywood celebrities and Washington politicians — Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator Mitch McConnell come to mind — about whom we’ve always heard about an “open secret,” but I don’t see the New York Times reporting on them ever.

She also seems to lack an understanding of empathy.  Unlike Coretta Scott King, the late wife of MLK Jr. who spoke out repeatedly and forcefully for gay rights and recognized them to be part of the larger civil rights movement.  Here’s one of her statements that Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher at NOM should check out before the continue to try to co-opt the King legacy.

“A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”

I’d tend to think Coretta probably better reflects the beliefs of MLK than his niece.  More at AMERICAblog Gay.

While Olson was on Fox, Boies was debating Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council on CBS’s Face the Nation and he called Perkins on his lies and made up studies.

…it’s very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can’t be cross-examined. But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence, there weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. It’s easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can’t do that.

Not sure why the video is so small, but you can watch the clip full size at CBS.com.