The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Today I woke up phenomenally early. For some reason my irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) was in play while I slept -- which is all I'll say about that. I was oddly having a vivid dream as well about coming out as trans in my teens instead of my forties, and forgetting my High School class schedule.
So, an interesting way to wake up.
So I turned on MSNBC to Morning Joe to follow the news. One of the first things I heard about this morning was President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I had the same thoughts as the hosts as the hosts even before they expressed their thoughts: 1.) What exactly has the President done to merit that award at this point in his Presidency? -- and 2.) this raises the foreign policy expectations of the President for the future to fairly high heights. Of course too, NASA shot the Moon too. All I can say is I'm glad we didn't use Marvin-The-Martian's Illudium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
I also heard, at the top of the 4:00 AM PDT hour, how the House had passed hate crime legislation for "gays and lesbians." Shortly thereafter, I watched the CNN video attached to Pam's diary How I ended up videotaped for AC360 today, and listened to both Anderson Cooper and the reporter in the segment's header -- Randi Kaye -- repeatedly use of the phrase "gays and lesbians." No "bisexual"; no "transgender" -- No B or T in the opening reporting header for the segment.
As we've pointed out frequently here at Pam's House Blend, the federal hate crime legislation covers sexual orientation and gender identity. That means the bill covers the entire broad spectrum of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
I won't speak for the Bisexual Subcommunity, but I will say the Transgender Subcommunity has worked hard for full inclusion in federal civil rights legislation; we've worked very hard over the years to make sure that language that includes the broad spectrum of the LGBT community.
Words matter. If media doesn't include bisexual and transgender people as part of the LGBT issue constituency, then part of the broad spectrum of people who are actually impacted by the current swath of federal civil rights legislation are improperly erased from public discussion.
I'm one of Pam Spaulding's "baristas" -- I'm one of the front page bloggers who regularly posts to the blog "Pam's House Blend." I'm a transsexual; I identify as transgender.
It really irritated me when I saw the segment on "gay and lesbian" disappointment with Obama Administration progress on "gay and lesbian" civil rights issues. The community is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The phrase "gender identity" -- which in definition in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) includes gender expression -- is included in both the federal hate crime legislation and ENDA.
My trans peers and my existence within the broader LGBT community is being erased by how CNN and other news organizations are covering LGBT issues; is being erased from public discussion of LGBT civil rights legislation.
Please do my trans peers and I the favor of not scripting us out of the LGBT civil rights movement. We exist as part of the broader LGBT community, and it's somewhat erroneous to report on "gay and lesbian" issues without including "bisexual and transgender" as part of the issue constituency that's also impacted by federal legislation.
Maybe it's partially the IBS speaking, but there is something irritating about too frequently watching my peers and I being erased from the public discussion of broad LGBT issues.
~~~~~~
Part 2 will be a piece on erasure of subcommunity concerns regarding ENDA.
Today the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Development, GLAD's lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA Sec. 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing legally married couples if the spouses aren't of different sexes.
As in other DOMA-related filings from the Obama administration, the DOJ insists that it is required to defend DOMA, even though the president deems it onerous.
As the President has stated previously, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.
Uh huh. Whatever. At least they didn't compare my civil marriage to incest this time, according to Chris Geidner. Progress?
GLAD responds:
Nothing in the government's brief is unexpected, and nothing in it addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states' determination that people are married. We disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that's a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection.
This case is about seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can't get on their spouse's health plan, for parents who can't file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children's education or family emergencies. We're pleased that the issues have now been joined and the case is moving toward resolution, because every day, an increasing number of families - not just our plaintiffs - are being harmed by DOMA.
We're proud of this case the National Law Journal has called "carefully planned" and the case with the potential to have "the greatest national impact". There's a long road ahead, and we will keep you posted of all the developments along the way.
Here's what happens next, according to an e-mail from GLAD.
So, at this point we have 14 days to file an opposition to the motion dismiss. The government will then file a reply to our opposition. After that, our first hearing will be scheduled, and we can expect that to take place early next year. Having said all of that, it's possible that both sides will get and receive extensions on that schedule.
Make up you flipping mind, and, by the way, nice sentiments don't mean much as you continue to screw with our relationships. Sigh -- after that exhale, the positive overarching message in this new Obama DOJ reply brief (and it will not please the right either) the tone is much improved, but there's that still-open question is about whether it HAS to defend the discriminatory law at all. Arguments have been made on both sides.
The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.
Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.
In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law. Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.
..."DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.
What is left to evolve on this issue? The only thing evolving is marriage itself, which the fundies continually state hasn't changed in 2000 years or some such BS. Good news also mentioned in the article is that the U.S. government will not defend using the blatantly ridiculous notions that procreation or raising children needs to be tied to government interest when it comes to marriage.
The White House statement:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of Media Affairs
______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 17, 2009
Statement by the President on the Smelt v. United States Brief
Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.
The brief and statements from it are below the fold.
Last week I reported on the Blend that there was zero chance of a federal hate crimes bill passing in the Senate as standalone legislation. The bill, considered the least controversial of all of the pro-LGBT legislation (otherwise it wouldn't be in the queue first) would add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing hate crimes laws.
Today it was announced that the bill has been tacked onto a tourism bill, according to "an unnamed source" (why can't people own the most basic information?). (WashBlade):
Lawmakers are expected to pass the measure by amending S. 1023, or the Travel Promotion Act, said the source. The bill is geared toward establishing a national travel promotion program to communicate U.S. travel policies and to promote travel to the United States.
"The idea is that that will be an amendment to the tourism bill that's going to be on the floor this week in the Senate, and we're thinking that the vote will happen probably [Tuesday] or Wednesday," said the source.
The hate crimes bill passed the House on April 29, 249-175, as a standalone measure. The legislation would allow the U.S. Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes committed against LGBT people that result in death or serious injury.
Oh -- I forgot this bit of business: there will be a dog-and-pony show press conference on Capitol Hill today on this. Attendees scheduled: Harry Reid; Joe Solmonese, Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League.
Remember, folks, when this passes, you are going to see a whole lot of backslapping, high-fives and ego-strokes on the Hill and by advocacy groups, hoping that you folks out there will be so happy to see the first major piece of pro-LGBT legislation passed and signed by the President that you'll forget you were shut taken a dump on by this administration's DOJ with that DOMA brief.
Sorry, folks, we'll be elated to see the federal hate crimes bill succeed (and for the fundies to take a temporary bath), but there's no way to mitigate the hate brief's damage to LGBT rights. As I've mentioned before, if there aren't the votes to pass a standalone hate crimes bill, do you think Pelosi, Reid, and the administration have the spine to take on ENDA?
Americablog is reporting that the administration is trying to find a way to kiss and make up, or at least stop us from making noise. And as John says, it sounds so 1990s. If this is the best they can do after that DOMA brief, they have another thing coming.
Joe and I got an email the other day from a well-connected gay friend, and he said he was hearing rumors that the Obama administration, in an effort to woo back the gays, was thinking of possibly announcing the following this month:
1. Something on Hate Crimes.
2. Federal benefits for partners of gay federal employees.
3. A gay ambassador.
Let me explain something. All of that is very sweet and nice. But it's all very 1990s. Bill Clinton and George W Bush both appointed gay ambassadors, so you get no kudos there. Federal benefits for partners of gay federal employees is, again, nice, and will certainly benefit the handful of gays who work in the government. But again, it's very 1990s, in terms of issues on the gay community's radar. And finally, Hate Crimes. Nice bill, important, but totally bottom of the barrel in terms of its importance compared to DOMA, ENDA, and DADT. Not to mention, Hate Crimes already passed the Senate and House in the last Congress - we expect more with a Democratic president who has promised to be our "fierce advocate."
And a word about the federal employee benefits. How exactly are they going to pull that one off? First off, their own DOMA brief argues that it's not fair to ask straight taxpayers to pay for our benefits. So how is the administration going to pull a 180 on that one? Second, what about DOMA? Doesn't it have something to say about the federal government paying benefits to gay partners?
I'd love to see the administration pull that off by rejecting the arguments in its own brief on DOMA, but hell will freeze over before that happens.
The White House spinners on marriage equality look like fools when the former VP looks more supportive than President Barack Obama. Cheney supports marriage equality, not civil unions (but has the same unconstitutional leave-it-to-the-states position). (Huff Post):
Dick Cheney rarely takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama. But on Monday, the former vice president did just that, saying that he supports gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government.
Speaking at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Cheney was asked about recent rulings and legislative action in Iowa and elsewhere that allowed for gay couples to legally wed.
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."
UPDATE: Chris@Law Dork 2.0 parsed Darth's statement and initially thought that the former VP was supporting marriage equality at the state level, but he's now Chris thinks it was just a well-parsed utterance from Cheney. First, Cheney's statement:
I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that - and they do at present.
Chris says:
He has not affirmatively stated a belief in government-recognized marriage equality, even at a state level. He has affirmatively stated a belief that each state, regardless of its decision, should be able to choose marriage equality if it wishes to do so.
Cheney has not ever, that I can find, stated opposition to or support for state government-sanctioned marriage equality. His stated position has gone, I believe, from leaning against recognition but supporting states' rights to come to their own decision (2000) to neutral on recognition and supporting states' rights (2004) to leaning for recognition and supporting states' rights (2009). (See the first post on this topic to see a more drawn out explanation.)
Fair enough. What this really means is that the next person who asks Cheney about this has to have a bulletproof question, such as "Do you agree with Vermont's legislature, which eliminated civil unions and voted to enact full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples? That's a yes or no question. Even if Cheney tries to parse that by saying it's a state issue, it would force him to say whether he believes in marriage equality or not himself.
Call this a follow up to my diary What's My Sex? What's My Gender? -- Call this new What Is My Sex? What Is My Gender? diary my 2.0 diary on the subject.
Transportation Security Administration Requires Name on Airline Ticket to Match Identification
The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced last week that beginning May 15, all passengers will be asked to enter their full name - as it appears on the government issued identification they will be traveling with - when making airline reservations. For instance, if a person's first, middle and last name are on their driver's license and their driver's license is what they will be traveling with, their first, middle and last name must be used when purchasing their airline ticket. TSA officers at airports across the country will check to make sure they match when passengers pass through security.
The requirement is the first phase of TSA's Secure Flight passenger vetting program which shifts pre-departure watch list matching responsibilities from individual aircraft operators to TSA.
The second phase of Secure Flight begins August 15, 2009, when passengers will be required to enter their date of birth and gender when booking airline flights. TSA said the additional data will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have similar names to individuals on the watch list, and better identify individuals that may pose a known or suspected threat.
Once Secure Flight's advanced technology is fully implemented in early 2010, enhanced watch list matching will be done by the government. Airlines will gather a passenger's full name, date of birth and gender when making an airline reservation to determine if the passenger is a match to the "No Fly" or "Selectee" lists.
This gender ID/travel issue is directly related to the Real ID Act. So again, some of my documentation says I'm male, and some says I'm female -- This is the case with many transsexuals, whether or not they are pre-operative, non-operative, or post-operative transsexuals.
Terrorists will employ novel methods to artfully conceal suicide devices. Male bombers may dress as females in order to discourage scrutiny.
Obviously, if you didn't know, gender matters when you fly. Beyond terrorists crossdressing on airplanes to "discourage scrutiny," (that works?), the beverages, snacks, seating, and restrooms on commercial aircraft are all segregated by gender, correct?
So, getting back to the point, if a TSA agent decides my sex and gender doesn't match, what happens? Will I, as a trans person, be subjected to extra scrutiny specifically because I'm trans? It sure sounds like it.
Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Act (federal anti-hate crimes law) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. When asked if he supports transgender inclusion, Obama said, "Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."
But if repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) aren't priorities for the Obama Administration, how much of a priority do you think it will be for the Obama Administration to deal with the identification card issues for trans people like me?
When it comes to my current expectations of the Obama Administration to work on issues that directly impact lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people -- especially issues that only deal with transgender people -- well, I'm not holding my breath on the Obama Administration championing LGBT community issues.
If you'd have asked me about my expectations between November of last year and January of this year, the audacious hope I felt for the incoming administration would have resulted in me giving a more positive assessment of President Obama and his governing team. Who knew that my hope would turn out to be so much more recklessly audacious than I thought it ever could or would be.
[Below the fold, a joint media release from Equality California and the Transgender Law Center on a "Bill to Make Identification Change More Accessible for Transgender Persons."]
U.S. Rep. John Conyers, you better not let the White House or Nancy Pelosi know that because it's simply not on their agenda. (Michigan Messenger):
U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, said Saturday in an interview with Michigan Messenger that the votes are in place in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Gay rights advocates have been working to get the law repealed as more states pass laws allowing same-sex couples to get married.
"Well in my committee, yes, but in the House and Senate, that's a different question," Conyers said in terms of a DOMA repeal passing.
The Hill reports that Conyers was one of only 67 members of the House to vote against DOMA in 1996; with eight committee members opposing, including Conyers. The legislation was passed with the help of 342 House lawmakers.
I wonder what the head count for repeal would be today?
UPDATE: I've added more commentary to the post. (Also, a little funny bit -- I actually reported on this before The Advocate got it online.)
Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate finally got a crack at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today at the daily press briefing:
KERRY ELEVELD: The President supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act during the election. Now that same-sex couples can marry legally in five different states, what is the President doing to make sure those marriages are recognized at the federal level, and what's the timeline for something like that?
ROBERT GIBBS: I...I will have to go check on that. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
Just an FYI, a few of the press releases I've received Monday from the White House, indicating they are "checking on" these burning issues...
* Statement of President Barack Obama on Haitian Flag Day
* Remarks by the First Lady at the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at the Metropolitan Museum of Art American Wing
* President Obama to Deliver Commencement Address at US Naval Academy in Annapolis
Seriously, does Gibbs think we believe him when he has to check on what the President's plan on DOMA is, given we've seen a string of states enact marriage equality, and even seen a U.S. Senator, Tom Harkin of Iowa, publicly change his mind to support marriage equality after having voted for the federal DOMA?
"We all grow as we get older, and we learn things and we become more sensitive to people and people's lives. And the more I've looked at that, I've grown to think differently about how people - how we should live. And I guess I'm at the point that, you know - I'm to that point of live and let live.
"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Governor Baldacci said. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."
"Article I in the Maine Constitution states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.'"
"This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," Governor Baldacci said.
President believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states.
The White House also agrees with this commenter over at Huffington Post, who wrote this in response to my post on homophobia in the black community and Obama:
The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what's the problem! Some people can just not be happy anymore without confrontation to to sad. I do not believe in gay marriage and do not hate anyone nor do I fear anything--- I Let Go and Let God have the Judgment day not my problem or am I in control of who loves who!
In response to this insanity, I reminded this misguided soul that if we left matters of civil rights to the states, Jim Crow would still be in effect, Obama's parents would not have been able to marry, and poll taxes would still exist. How soon we forget.
This is the level of ignorance and interpretation of this Administration's position that is allowed to go unchallenged by the President and through his mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs.
The 4x married, ex-con former mayor Marion "The bitch set me up" Barry also holds the President's position on the matter. Barry, in his current role as DC Councilmember was the lone vote against DC recognizing same-sex marriages outside of the District:
The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."
"I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."
That quote, by the way, was used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California in a robocall to highlight the President's "position" (even though belatedly candidate Obama said he opposed the measure, drawing attention to his inconsistent position).
I guess Gibbs has truly morphed into Scotty McClelland.
The absurdity of the answers Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is forced to deliver in defense of DADT (or rather, the President's "helplessness" to do anything about the continuation of discharges on his watch), is pathetic. Here is today's jackassery, via Kerry Eleveld @ The Advocate:
The first questioner Friday lumped President Obama's failure thus far to address the gay ban into a group of other pledges that the president has changed course on, such as his decision this week not to release the photos of detainee abuse. In other words, some in the mainstream press are starting to view the president's inaction on "don't ask, don't tell" as the reversal of a campaign promise. Gibbs avoided answering the DADT piece of that inquiry by responding more directly to the issue of releasing the photos.
Q Well, the President says that releasing the detainee photos poses a danger to our troops, but doesn't dismissing otherwise qualified soldiers also pose a danger? Is it a question of degree?
MR. GIBBS: No, no. What I talked about in terms of "don't ask, don't tell" was the President -- the President, as you know, supports changing that because he strongly believes that it does not serve our national interest. He agrees with former members of the Joint Chiefs in that determination.
But unlike photos, the only durable solution to "don't ask, don't tell" is through a legislative process, and the President is working with Congress and members of the Joint Chiefs to ensure that that happens.
Q But couldn't he in the meantime put a moratorium on these discharges until that can be accomplished?
MR. GIBBS: But again, the President has determined that that's not -- that's not the way to seek any sort of lasting or durable solution to the public policy problem that we have.
Q Then how would you respond to the criticism, though, that dismissing a qualified linguist endangers the troops?
MR. GIBBS: I think I would respond by saying that the President has long believed that the policy doesn't serve our national interest.
The White House is backed up against the wall and cannot give a reasonable, logical defense to continue a policy that is hurting our military effectiveness. He can stop the discharges right now, while Congress moves in its not-so-deliberate speed on the matter.
This is embarrassing for the "fierce advocate", but quite frankly it's irresponsible as commander in chief to act as if he can't do anything right now.
This is what happens when you hold fast to a disingenuous, irrational position on marriage equality, Mr. President. You are a gift to the agents of intolerance -- Sarah Palin on Miss California's bigotry:
"What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe --- marriage is between a man and a woman," Palin added.
A federal judge has awarded a former Army Special Forces commander nearly $500,000 because she was rejected from a job at the Library of Congress while transitioning from a man to a woman.
Diane Schroer of Alexandria, Va., applied for the terrorism analyst job while she was still a man named David Schroer. He was offered the job, but the offer was pulled after he told a library official that he was having surgery to change his gender.
U.S. District Judge James Robinson ruled Tuesday that Schroer was entitled to $491,190 in back pay and damages because of sex discrimination...
Does President Obama's Justice Department continue this lawsuit to appeal? Does the Obama Administration, or the Library Of Congress, now offer Colonel Diane Schroer (Retired) a job?
What happens next in this lawsuit, as well as with executive orders on employment non-discrimination, will tell us a lot about President Obama's commitment to employment equality, and his commitment to a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
I'm watching. My lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender peers will be watching. Many of us want to see tangible commitment by the Obama administration to fully inclusive employment non-discrimination, and what that Obama Justice Department, as well as the rest of the Obama Administration, does regarding this particular case with Col. Diane Schroer (Ret.) will tell us a lot about President Obama's commitment to LGBT civil rights.
Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's executive director, calls on the president to live up to his campaign promise to end discrimination in the military in this open letter, "Stand by Your Word Mr. President: End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'":
President Obama is a brave man. He doesn't hesitate to take great political risks. He asked Congress for billions to save the banking system and more billions to stimulate the economy - and Congress handed them to him. Not everyone looked happily on the trillions we'll be facing in debt, but in a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Sunday he still got a 69 percent approval rating - the highest of any president at the 100-day mark in 20 years - and 72 percent of Americans said they have a favorable impression of him. Not since Ronald Reagan's first 100 days has a president done so well. Obama is not only living up to most Americans' expectations, he's exceeding them.
So here we have a decisive president who's not afraid to act boldly on the economy. He takes the enormous risk of allowing the release of the torture memos, and even so more Americans approve of that controversial act than disapprove. Majorities say that that the country has turned around and is now headed in the right direction, and that he's kept his campaign promises.
That's a lot of political capital, and political capital is political power. The president may never have a better moment. There is, however, one campaign promise he's been silent on since he was elected in November: the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." It's still up there on the White House website.
Honestly, the president and this White House has been silent about all of his promises related to equality since he took office. The White House has shown an aversion to even commenting on equality occurring around the country after it flubbed its response to the Iowa decision. And even worse on the DADT front, all the signals so far have been "delay because we cannot multitask." The funding for DADT continues, the discharges continue.
UPDATE: The White House has released statements by the President and the First Lady at the Egg Roll. The release -- and video -- are below the fold.
What a difference it is in 2009, where you have an regime change that actually welcomes LGBT families to participate in the Easter Egg Roll. The Family Equality Council on today's event:
In 2006 over 100 families with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parents attended the White House Easter Egg Roll, organized by Family Equality Council (formerly Family Pride). At the time, it was unclear whether LGBT families were truly welcome at the White House, but our families enthusiastically participated and the country had an opportunity to see and hear from LGBT families in an unprecedented way. This year, another 100 LGBT families or more will attend the Egg Roll, but this time the White House has specifically encouraged them to participate in this time-honored event. President Obama was the first presidential candidate to openly affirm the equal value of LGBT families, in an August 2008 letter to Family Equality Council's Executive Director, Jennifer Chrisler.
LGBT families' organized participation in the 2006 White House Easter Egg Roll showcased their love and strength on an unprecedented scale. In addition to print and radio coverage, more than 16.5 million television viewers saw LGBT families as they are-just as happy to attend the Egg Roll as any other family, just as tired from waiting in line for tickets, just as thrilled to share an American tradition with others.
The White House theme for the event is "Let's Go Play," and as many as 30,000 families from 45 states and the District of Columbia are expected to attend.
We want to encourage kids to lead healthy, active lives and today's activities will include basketball on the White House court, soccer, a dance floor, yoga, and Double Dutch! We also have a reading stage, a music stage - some special guests will perform throughout the day - and a Kids Kitchen where White House and guest chefs will teach kids how to cook easy, energizing snacks and meals. In addition to all of these new activities, we have 13,000 hardboiled eggs ready for the traditional Easter Egg Roll and Egg Hunt!
NPR also has coverage, with Rebecca Roberts interviewing Jamie Grant and her partner, M'Bwende Anderson, who are taking their two children to participate in the Egg Roll.
Be a part of the Blend White House Easter Egg Roll album!
Ever since Glenn Beck moved over to Faux News, he's really become untethered from reality and his paranoia and contempt for Barack Obama is bizarre. Take this clip (via DKos TV's Jed Lewison):
BECK: These bloodsucker vampires are not going to be satisfied with just sucking the blood out of GM's top guy, the AIG executives, or any other business, or business person. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop. There's only two ways for this movie to end. Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.
This just landed in my inbox. To keep this in perspective -- this White House can't find the time or motivation to send out an official release to the MSM about marriage equality in Iowa or Vermont, but it can do this.
White House Releases Souvenir Easter Egg Design and Availability
The White House today unveiled the 2009 Souvenir Easter Egg. This is the first time the egg design has been available to families prior to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, to be held on Monday, April 13th. This year’s Easter Egg Roll activities build on the theme of ‘Let’s Go Play,’ which will seek to educate children on the importance of living a healthy and active lifestyle. This year’s egg is the ‘greenest’ egg in White House Easter Egg Roll history.
The 2009 egg:
· Uses 31% less paperboard than the 2008 designs
· Eliminates the need for the paper shred/filler
· Features an egg-shaped dye cut instead of a cellophane window
I've been offline for several hours and missed all the drama...
It was a Soapblox thing. There was some tinkering going on under the hood related to ads that blew them out. They said it's fixed, so report if there are any difficulties.
***
While we're on the subject of comments, here's a chance to test them out.
I noticed that there hadn't been a White House media press release on Vermont (or Iowa for that matter, just the lame-o one about Iowa that required a "correction" because equality was omitted), but this afternoon I heard from a reporter who was seeking a statement from the Obama White House regarding the Vermont decision.
The official White House statement?
"No comment."
***
Also, Joe Solmonese was on Hardball debating Maggie Gallagher about that ridiculous National Organization for Marriage ad:
What a difference a regime change makes. Remember when we had to hold our collective breath to see if gay families were going to be turned away, not acknowledged or not greeted while the cameras were running in the Bush White House.
The White House is allocating tickets for the upcoming Easter Egg Roll to gay and lesbian parents as part of the Obama administration's outreach to diverse communities.
Families say the gesture shows that the new Democratic administration values them as equal to other families. And for many, being included in the annual tradition-dating to 1878-renews hope that they will have more support in their quest for equal rights in matters such as marriage and adoption than under the previous administration.
On Tuesday, gays and lesbians gained another victory when Vermont joined Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gay couples the right to marry. In the District of Columbia, the council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
White House officials said that tickets for Monday's Easter Egg Roll event were distributed to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations, but did not specify how many or to which ones. Representatives from Family Equality Council, Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other groups confirmed they were invited and encouraged to have their members participate.
Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council expects more than 100 families to attend.
Blenders who are attending -- please share photos with us from the day.
There's a great piece by Kerry Eleveld in The Advocate about the pitiful fact that the Obama administration has missed an opportunity to issue a significant comment about the fact that the number of states affirming marriage equality has doubled since Air Force One took off for his trip abroad.
This just landed in my inbox. How many progressives and LGBT-friendly folks made the cut? HRC Foundation Religion and Faith Director Harry Knox was appointed.
President Barack Obama today announced additional members of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The Advisory Council is part of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and is composed of religious and secular leaders and scholars from different backgrounds. Each member of the Council is appointed to a one-year term.
Members marked with an asterisk were announced today. The members of the Council are:
Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco
New York , NY
*Anju Bhargava, Founder, Asian Indian Women of America
New Jersey
*Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ
Los Angeles, CA
Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association
Chicago, IL
*The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President-Elect, National Council of Churches USA
Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Catholic College
San Antonio , TX
Fred Davie, Senior Adviser, Public/Private Ventures
New York , NY
*Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Orthodox Jewish Union
Washington, DC
Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
Longwood, FL
*Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC
Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Knoxville, TN
*Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
Washington, DC
Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
Cleveland, OH
Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
Taylors, SC
Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core
Chicago, IL
*Anthony Picarello, General Counsel , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, DC
*Nancy Ratzan, Board Chair, National Council of Jewish Women
Miami, FL
Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs
Winston-Salem , NC
Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Washington , DC
Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
Philadelphia , PA
Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
Alexandria , VA
Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
Bellevue , WA
Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
Philadelphia , PA
Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
Washington , DC
*Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)
Indianapolis, IN
Harry Knox:
"I am humbled by the invitation to join President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I hope this council will draw upon the richness of our unique perspectives to advise the president on policies that will improve the lives of all the people we have been called to serve. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is eager to help the Administration achieve its goals around economic recovery and fighting poverty; fatherhood and healthy families; inter-religious dialogue; care for the environment; and global poverty, health and development. And, of course, we will support the President in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people."
UPDATE: Sarah Posner, over at The American Prospect notes the anti-gay stance of Bishop Blake. More below the fold.
With North Korea's Kim Jong-Il acting up again (he seems to erupt like Old Faithful), puffing himself up to impress/scare the rest of the world and test whoever happens to be president. Barack Obama discussed his plan to help move the globe toward nuclear disarmament and said this about the North Korea missile firing in an address to a huge crowd in Hradcany Square, Prague, Czech Republic.
Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action -- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- (applause) -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
...So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
I haven't been following all of the stops of the first big trip abroad by the President and First Lady, but there's one thing I do know -- I sleep better at night knowing our country is no longer represented by a president who makes an ass out of himself in front of world leaders in times of crisis or utters insane, ignorant, amoral BS like:
Left: letting his lips flap over an open mic -- he said that quote to Tony Blair while chewing on a buttered roll, adding that special touch of American class.
"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." - Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." - speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003
"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." - after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
"My answer is bring them on." - on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003
It's refreshing not to hear cheap, inflammatory phrases like "Dead Or Alive," "Mission Accomplished," or "I'm the Decider." We all know Barack Obama has an actual functioning brain. Watching Bush was like a form of PTSD - you'd watch him on one of those trips and replay all the horrible embarrassing incidents, afraid he was going to top himself.
I also heard, at the top of the 4:00 AM PDT hour, how the House had passed hate crime legislation for "gays and lesbians." Shortly thereafter, I watched the CNN video attached to Pam's diary 
What a difference it is in 2009, where you have an regime change that actually welcomes LGBT families to participate in the 
With North Korea's Kim Jong-Il acting up again (he seems to erupt like 
Left: letting his lips flap over an open mic -- he said that quote to Tony Blair while chewing on a buttered roll, adding that special touch of American class.
"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." - after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004
