EDITOR: THIS IS A WORKS CITED FOR A POST ON F6's MAIN SITE WITH THE SAME DATE & TITLE
You may click on the post title above to view that post at your leisure. Thank you!
SONG HISTORY: When Johnny comes marching home again (1863) [WIKI]
The Rachel Maddow Show [BIO][MSNBC][Air America][Facebook][Twitter]
Gates wants humane implementation of DADT until it can be repealed:
[Defense Department Press Release][Associated Press Story via ABC News]
[Stars & Stripes Article] [Brietbart Article] [Today In The Military Article]
News Politics News [You Tube] [Twitter]
RECOMMENDED READING
Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,
by Nathaniel Frank St. Martin’s Press, 364 pages, $25.95 hardcover
SOME ARTICLES CITED W/ TEXT INCLUDED
Live from Turkey Hollow...by David Mixner
Personal Statement: DOMA Brief Brings Shame To Obama Team!
The brief in defense of DOMA filed by President Obama's Department of Justice could have been written by the Rev. Pat Robertson. Using the worst of stereotypes, it intimates that we don't have constitutional guarantees, invokes scenarios of incest, of children and advocates that we don't have the same rights as others who have struggled for civil rights.
For two days, I have searched for an explanation, attempted to make my reading of the consequences of this horrendous document wrong and actually have sought out the opinions of a number of legal scholars. Anyway you cut it, it is a sickening document - one that this administration should be ashamed of and should disgust any friend of this community.
What in the hell were they thinking? Or is that their thinking?
There is some question among scholars as to whether this administration was required to respond to DOMA at all. Most think not, but some very respected ones feel they had to respond. However, to a person, they say that the response is way out of line, totally unnecessary and goes far beyond anything required. They all agree that if the Department of Justice felt they had to respond, a simple, few-paged brief on the very limited issue before the Federal Court would have been all that was necessary. The argument that they were required to write this all-out attack on our rights is simply bogus!
You fully need to understand the ramifications of this brief: it undercuts every conceivable argument that the LGBT community would use to fight for the repeal of DOMA. Right-wing nut cases can now just simply quote horrible stuff from this hateful brief and proclaim loudly it was filed by the Obama Justice Department. The President and his team have not only undercut this community but have damaged his own ability to repeal this hideous law given to us by President Clinton. With Democratic friends like these, God helps us.
I will not attend a fundraiser for the National Democratic Party in Washington next week when the current administration is responsible for these kind of actions. How will they ever take us seriously if we keep forking out money while they harm us. For now on, my money is going to battles within the community such as the fight in Maine or the March on Washington! I am so tired of being told by Democratic operatives to 'suck it up' because so many other profound issues are at stake. It is as if our fight for our freedom is single handedly responsible for the fate of all other issues. Bullshit. Maybe, just maybe, it is time for others to 'suck it up' for us and finally, without conditions, join our fight for our freedom!
Just in case you think I am overreacting, take a look at a sampling of the reaction around the community in the previous post.. Even HRC and The Task Force issued strong statements against the brief and they are to be commended for doing so. Americablog.com broke the story and they deserve enormous credit for their excellence.
President Obama, even Dick Cheney is for marriage equality. Please don't try to placate us with actions already taken 16 years ago by President Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be able to help you find the way since she has already written a policy for your approval ending discrimination in her agency. This community is no longer interested in hearing one more time your personal beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. We want you to rise above your own beliefs and hear you articulate a powerful vision of full equality for LGBT Americans. You must come out for a full, not partial, repeal of DOMA and liberate our brave LGBT soldiers fighting to protect America in order to restore our faith in you and your leadership.
We want to believe; give us a reason.
====================================================
Political Punch with Jake Tapper [Twitter]
ABC News Senior White House Correspondent
12 June 2009 19:00 Obama Justice Department Defends Defense Of Marriage Act – That Candidate Obama Opposed
President Obama’s Justice Department filed legal papers late Thursday to dismiss the first same sex marriage case filed in federal court.
The Justice Department defended the Defense Of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which as a candidate then-Sen. Obama opposed, saying that the plaintiffs Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer are seeking a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.”
"The plaintiffs in this case, a same-sex couple married under the laws of California, make a number of claims against DOMA,” the Obama Justice Department lawyers argued. “Specifically, they allege that Section 2 violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and their ‘right to travel,’ that both sections of DOMA violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component) and their ‘right to privacy, and that Section 3 violates their ‘right of free speech’ and their ‘rights’ under the Ninth Amendment. Plaintiffs initially filed this action in State court, and the defendant United States removed it to this Court. Rather than reaching the merits of these claims, the Court should dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
But many arguments being made by the Obama administration are meeting with some outrage by supporters of same sex marriage – and not just because of the administration’s arguments in the brief in support of a law the president said he opposed while seeking gay and lesbian votes.
Writing at Americablog John Aravosis cited a passage saying that “the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy…And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.”
The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage), and re Mortenson's Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
“Holy cow,” wrote Aravosis. “Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.”
Appearing at a presidential candidates forum in August 2007 sponsored by the gay and lesbian rights group the Human Rights Campaign, then-Sen. Obama said it “is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people. That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the United States Senate.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
15 June 2009 14:53 Gay Rights Group Tells President Obama That His Pro-DOMA Legal Brief Caused LGBT Community Pain
The Obama Justice Department last week wrote a brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which as a candidate then-Sen. Obama called “abhorrent.”
The brief, which compared in legal terms same-sex marriages to incestuous ones, has met with some anger in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, among others.
Today Joe Solmonese, the president of the LGBT rights organization the Human Rights Campaign, wrote to the Presidentexpressing the feeling that “when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act, I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.”
Solmonese took issue with the Obama Justice Department’s use of “the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people.” (The brief said that “Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage.”)
Solmonese goes on to take issue with a number of arguments in the brief, concluding by writing, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”
He says to the president that the “brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough for us?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
16 June 2009 15:44 Outraged By Obama Legal Brief, Gay Democratic Donors Boycotting DNC Bash
Last week, President Obama’s Justice Department filed a legal brief against same sex marriage in which it compared gay unions to incestuous ones and that of an underage girl – in the sense that states have the right to not recognize marriages that are legal in other states or countries.
The timing of the brief, which the president of the leading gay and lesbian rights organization said caused his community “pain,” is awkward, given that next Thursday, June 25, the Democratic National Committee is hitting up the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community for cash in a fundraiser featuring Vice President Biden.
As John Aravosis at AmericaBlog reports, gay donors, outraged at the legal brief, are withdrawing their support from the event.
The treasurer of the DNC, Andrew Tobias, finds himself distancing himself from the brief, as Ben Smith of Politico reports.
"If this debacle of a brief represented the president's views, I'd boycott too," Tobias said in an e-mail. But Tobias insisted that he “personally totally believe(s) in the president.”
David Mixner, a former adviser to President Clinton, is not so sold, writing that the brief is a “sickening document” that “could have been written by the Rev. Pat Robertson. Using the worst of stereotypes, it intimates that we don't have constitutional guarantees, invokes scenarios of incest, of children and advocates that we don't have the same rights as others who have struggled for civil rights.”
Mixner says many scholars don’t think the Obama administration needed to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that states don’t have to accept same sex marriages from other states. Some disagree. But “to a person, they say that the response is way out of line, totally unnecessary and goes far beyond anything required. They all agree that if the Department of Justice felt they had to respond, a simple, few-paged brief on the very limited issue before the Federal Court would have been all that was necessary.”
The brief, Mixner argues, “undercuts every conceivable argument that the LGBT community would use to fight for the repeal of DOMA. Right-wing nut cases can now just simply quote horrible stuff from this hateful brief and proclaim loudly it was filed by the Obama Justice Department.”
For that reason, Mixner withdrew his support from the DNC fundraiser.
As did big Democratic gay donors Andy Towle and Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda and Foundation.
Aravosis is mad, criticizing "this rather ill-timed and inappropriate Democratic effort to milk money from our community at the same time Democrats are equating us with incest and not lifting a finger on any of our legislation priorities in Congress or the White House. It's not awfully clear why any gay person would give a Democrat a dime ever again.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
16 June 2009 21:46 President Obama to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees
ABC News has learned that tomorrow President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum extending benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees.
The move was long planned, sources say, though it comes at a time that gay and lesbian supporters of the president are expressing anger and disappointment at his inaction on rescinding Don't Ask/Dont Tell, his opposition to same-sex marriage, and his support for the anti-same-sex-marriage Defense of Marriage Act in a legal brief that compared same-sex unions to incestuous ones.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
17 June 2009 15:49 Today’s Qs for O’s WH (abridged)
TAPPER: Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?
GIBBS: Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.
TAPPER: I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn't have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph...
GIBBS: Well...
TAPPER: ...that's upset a lot of the president's supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?
GIBBS: Well, again, it's the president's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
17 June 2009 16:42 White House Says Obama Taking "Bold Action" on Benefits for Same Sex Partners
ABC News' Yunji de Nies reports:
Later this afternoon President Obama will sign a memo in the Oval Office, extending benefits for partners of gay and lesbian federal employees. This may seem like a victory for the LGBT community, but many gay and lesbians are upset about what is not included: health care, retirement and survivor benefits. The actual benefits are widely viewed as small potatoes, and include things like relocation benefits, and evacuation and housing benefits while abroad for State Department employees.
The White House says the president cannot extend health care and other benefits because of legal challenges under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the president has said he wants to repeal.
"Many gay and lesbian activist feel this falls far short of the promises President Obama made to the gay community on the campaign trail," said the Advocate's Kerry Eleveld. "Many are already saying if the president wanted to do something really bold he would spearhead an initiative to repeal DOMA."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president is committed to changing both DOMA and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, but that Congress, not the White House, must take the lead.
In a conference call with reporters, the president's highest ranking openly gay appointee, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry defended Mr. Obama's actions as "a first step, not a final step. This is an attempt to get our federal house in order."
But some federal workers say that what the White House is calling new benefits, such as use of sick leave to care for a domestic partners, is already available to federal employees.
Berry said that while that may be true in some instances, granting those benefits has "been subject to the whim of a supervisor, if you have an enlightened supervisor, yes that is a possibility." Berry continued, "What the president is doing today is making this no longer, optional, he is making it mandatory."
Many gay activists also question the timing of the president's action, which comes as the administration is under increasing criticism for the lack of movement on changing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and a recent Department of Justice memo, which in defending DOMA, compared gay marriage to incest.
Asked about the controversial comparison, Gibbs said, "Well, again, it's the president's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
17 June 2009 18:57 President Obama Signs LGBT Partner Benefits Memo
ABC News' Yunji de Nies and Sunlen Miller report:
Calling it, "a day that marks a historic step towards the changes we seek," President Barack Obama signed a presidential memo that will extend (limited) benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers.
"Many of our government's hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic public servants have long been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy for one simple reason -- the people that they love are of the same sex," he said. Still, the President acknowledged "this is only one step."
Surrounded by members of Congress, along with several lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) rights activists in the Oval Office, the President said that he is limited in the benefits he can extend, due to legal constraints under the Defense of Marriage Act. He has pledged to overturn that law, and today repeated that promise.
"I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it," the President said. "We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally; to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms; and to bring about that more perfect union. I'm committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come."
But many in the gay and lesbian community aren't happy with the President.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
18 June 2009 14:30 More Gay Donors Drop Out of DNC Fundraiser, Protesting Justice Department Brief
“This is not an appropriate time” for the Democratic party to be hitting up gays and lesbians for money, says Richard Socarides, a former Special Assistant to President Clinton, who’s not attending next week’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee.
Socarides tells ABC News that many members of the LGBT community are troubled by a brief filed by President Obama’s Justice Department last week that argued – too vociferously, many believe – against same sex marriage.
“The brief was very troubling to a lot of people and rightfully so,” Socarides says. “Supporters of the Democratic party and others who feel that gay and lesbian equality is an important issue for this administration to address are rightly concerned about this brief. Serious issues still need clarification.”
Socarides says that even though President Obama yesterday signed a presidential memorandum extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, he was also aware of what the President did not do. “The president did not last night address what direction he would give the Justice Department when these issues come up in the future, he did not address the continued discharges of gay people from the military.”
Socarides is just the latest in a list of prominent gay and lesbian Democrats withdrawing their support from the DNC event. Others include David Mixner, another former adviser to President Clinton; Andy Towle; and Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda and Foundation.
And you can, as John Aravosis notes, add Vermont state senate president pro tem Peter Shumlin to the list of prominent gay and lesbian Democrats who will not be attending.
"One thing I have learned dealing with marriage equality in Vermont is that we all have a responsibility to stand up for the civil rights of all Americans," Shumlin said yesterday, according to the Times-Argus. "This memo from the Justice Department is more Bush than Bush. It takes the only minority group left in America that national politicians can publicly discriminate against and still see their numbers go up in the polls and it reinforces the horrible stereotypes about our friends and neighbors."
And add gay Democratic donor Bruce Bastian, who told the Washington Blade he “will continue to support certain congressmen, congresswomen and senators whom I believe will continue to fight for our rights, but I don't think blanket donations to the Democratic Party right now are justified, at least not in my book.” He said he found the filing "very offensive."
"The administration has said they have to support the federal government's stance," he said. "But in the brief, they go way beyond where they need to go to just defend DOMA. They basically go to terminology and language that you would expect from the Bush administration, not the Obama administration."
Others include National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey who decried “the malicious and outrageous arguments and language used in the Department of Justice's marriage brief are only serving to inflame and malign the humanity of same-sex couples and our families,” and the Human Rights Campaign’s national field director Marty Rouse, who told the Blade that he “like many people, personally offended by the words used in the [Justice Department] brief to defend DOMA. And I just can't see right now attending a fundraiser for the DNC at this time."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
21 June 2009 10:30 White House Official Expressed Regret at Some Cites in Pro-DOMA Justice Department Brief
In a panel discussion at the liberal American Constitution Society Friday, President Obama's staff secretary, Lisa Brown, expressed personal reservations about some of the language in the Justice Department brief against same-sex marriage that cited the ability of states to refuse to recognize incestuous marriages as a comparison with same-sex ones.
"It was an awful lot better that the brief that was written in the Bush administration," Brown said, as first reported by Politico's Josh Gerstein. "There's no question -- personal statement -- that there were some cites in there that should not ... have been in there."
For many gay and lesbian Democratic donors, the brief -- written in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay and lesbian marriages -- was so outrageous they dropped out of a major DNC fundraiser for the gay and lesbian community this Thursday.
At another point, the moderator drew applause after asking about the slow pace of progress on gay and lesbian rights issue.
Ron Klain, the chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, said, "I understand why people are impatient with the pace of progress. We have only been here 125 days, and in those 125 days have many irons in the fire. ... I hope that next year when we have this conference and that question gets asked it doesn't elicit the same kind of applause that it elicited this time."
[...Think Progress has posted video of the event:....]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
29 June 2009 16:04 Today's Q's for O's White House
ABC News' Yunji de Nies reports:
de Nies: On don't ask/don't tell, how much was the president personally involved in that? I know you've said that he sort of turned that policy change over to the Pentagon, and you...(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I don't think I said that. I've said -- I mean, the president hasn't himself been involved in meetings with the Pentagon. A solution has to include working with the Pentagon. But it's something that the president has been involved in since coming to this administration.
de Nies : How much of a priority is this for him?
GIBBS: Well, it's something...
de Nies : Is there a timeline?
GIBBS: When we can get it done. The president has talked about this. And I've talked about the fact that, to have an enduring solution, this has to be done legislatively. That's -- I think most people recognize, is going to take some time to do. Working with both Congress and the Pentagon, I think the president will address this in remarks at the event a little bit later today. But, pardon me?
Helen Thomas : (inaudible)
GIBBS: No. But, again, in order to have that enduring solution, this is going to have to be done legislatively.
de Nies : Can I ask one more question quickly?
GIBBS: Sure.
de Nies : On sort of a D.C. issue -- and that is: What hasn't the president changed his license plate on the presidential limousine? Is he planning to change them for the "taxation without representation" plates?
GIBBS: I think rather than change the logo around the license plate, the president is committed instead to changing the status of the District of Columbia.
de Nies : But that is a symbol, though, that a lot of people look at as...
GIBBS: Right. I guess I would ask you to ask people in Washington whether they'd like to have that status changed, or that symbolism screwed onto the back of a limousine?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
29 June 2009 17:59 POTUS to LGBT: "Welcome to Your White House"
ABC News' Yunji de Nies reports:
ABBA's "Dancing Queen" filled the East Room, as more than 200 prominent gays and lesbians gathered for the first ever celebration of Pride month at the White House. The President and First Lady entered to thunderous applause. President Obama told the group he is committed to equality for their community.
"This struggle continues today, for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and will not put aside issues of basic equality," he said, "We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love."
Many gay and lesbians believe the President has been slow to act on major issues like the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and the Defense of Marriage Act. The President asked the group to focus on what has been accomplished so far.
"I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said, "But I say this: We have made progress. And we will make more."
The President spoke about his recently signed memorandum, guaranteeing benefits to same sex partners of federal workers. While those include benefits like relocation and emergency evacuation - health care, retirement and survivor benefits are left out.
"There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop," Mr. Obama said. Among those, the President said, the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Obama also said he has called on Congress to a domestic partners law, which would guarantee a range of benefits, most notably healthcare, to same sex couples. The President also vowed to pass a hate crimes bill that would include protections for gays and lesbians, and said the bill will be named for Matthew Shepard. The gay University of Wyoming student, whose parents were in the audience today, was tortured and killed near Laramie in 1998. His attackers were not charged with a hate crime. The President also said he is committed to ending the ban on entry to the U.S. based on HIV status.
As to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the President said he believes the policy works against America's national security.
"My administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress," he said. "I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."
Still, the President said government can only do so much. "Even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change, but, as I said before, on the hearts we open," he said.
He ended his speech with a promise to champion their cause in the days to come.
"I want you to know that, in this task, I will not only be your friend; I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you," he said.
====================================================
16 June 2009 U.S. to Extend Its Job Benefits to Gay Partners
By JEFF ZELENY with Kate Phillips and Bernie Becker The New York Times
President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.
Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.
Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.
The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.
“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”
The breadth and scope of the memorandum to be signed by Mr. Obama was being completed Tuesday evening, said administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president’s announcement on Wednesday.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama vowed to “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
But President Obama and his advisers have been reluctant to wade deeply into divisive issues like overturning a ban on openly gay military members or extending benefits to partners of government employees, fearful that such moves could overtake the administration’s broader agenda.
He has sent private assurances, several activists have said, that he intends to do more in coming years. But some gay groups have grown impatient with the wary stance of the White House, particularly as a growing number of state legislatures have taken up the question of same-sex marriage and other issues important to gay men and lesbians.
In considering whether to extend health benefits to same-sex partners, Mr. Obama confronted divided legal opinions.
In California, two federal appeals court judges said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers. But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote an angry letterto the White House on Monday about a decision by the administration to file a legal brief supporting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
“As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief,” Mr. Solmonese wrote. “In the course of your campaign, I became convinced — and I still want to believe — that you do, too.”
The brief, filed in federal court last week, was in response to a lawsuit arguing that the marriage act is unconstitutional.
A White House spokesman said that it was standard practice for the administration to back laws that are challenged in court — even those it does not agree with — and that the president “wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Mr. Obama repeatedly backed repealing the act during his presidential campaign.
With the administration’s decision to stop short of extending full health insurance benefits or calling for legislation to do so, it remained an open question how significant the presidential announcement would be, Mr. Socarides said.
But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.
==============================================
POLITICO BEN SMITH
16 June 2009 Tobias defends administration, fundraiser
DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias is defending a gay and lesbian fundraiser with Vice President Joe Biden, which is under attack by the movement's grass roots over the administration's legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
"If this debacle of a brief represented the president's views, I'd boycott too," Tobias, who is organizing the fundraiser and has been one of the White House's most vocal gay defenders, said in an e-mail. "[I] [t]otally understand all the hurt and anger, thought Joe Solmonese['s] letter to the president was spot on. Still personally totally believe in the president. His Pride Proclamation, and his call to repeal DOMA, are genuine."
Organizers, I'm told, are scrambling to get visible White House action on gay issues in advance of the June 25 dinner to prevent it from becoming a protest stage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
18 June 2009 16:22 Gay Dems complain DNC cut off funding, drop support for Biden event
Theboard of directors of the National Stonewall Democrats are dropping their support for a June 25 DNC fundraiser with Vice President Joe Biden over, they wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO, a combination of policy slights and the claim that they've been cut off from traditional party funding.
In the email to Tom Petrillo, who runs the party's substantial gay fundraising operation, the board members write:
[W]e are incredibly disappointed that the DNC has made a decision to withhold any financial support to National Stonewall Democrats this year but is in turn asking us to help raise money for the DNC in a difficult financial environment. The DNC has historically supported National Stonewall through sponsorship of the annual Capitol Champions event. This year, we did not receive any support. The DNC has traditionally provided materials for the many Pride parades and festivals around the country to help educate the LGBT community about why the Democratic Party is the Party for full LGBT equality. This year we were informed that we would not be receiving any materials or support for producing materials for the various nationwide Pride activities. These decisions were very disappointing.
We'd be remiss to also not mention that the recent legal brief of the Obama Administration defending DOMA is incredibly hurtful. The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels. To have our committed and loving relationships referred to as the moral equivalent of incest and pedophilia is not something that any of us ever expected from this Administration considering how hard we worked to be seen and respected. For that reason alone, advocating for attendance at a fundraiser to support the Administration and the DNC, while they have not condemned this hurtful language, is not something our membership will receive positively.
The group says it's not "boycotting" the June 25 fundraiser with Joe Biden; it just won't encourage its members to attend.
Gay money is, historically, of outsized importance to the Democratic Party. Howard Dean, in particular, launched his presidential campaign in part on enthusiasm from gay donors about his support for civil unions, and maintained those relationships as chairman.
UPDATE: A source forwards over Petrillo's conciliatory response to Stonewall's Shane Larson: While the DNC was unable to help with Pride materials this year, I did, in a recent conversation with Kyle Bailey, express that the DNC would be able to sponsor a project with Stonewall this year. He mentioned a Young Democrat guide that Stonewall is working on and I asked for him to send a proposal for possible assistance with funding. I am sorry if that was not communicated.
Tom,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of National Stonewall Democrats, we want to share with you our recent frustrations and to explain why we will not be further promoting the June 25th LGBT community fundraiser with Vice President Biden for the DNC. First, we want to make it clear that our refusal to promote the event and encourage participation from our many supporters should not be interpreted as a "boycott". Many of the members of the Board and our financial supporters have long supported the DNC financially. Our members will make their own decisions about whether or not they believe that financially supporting the DNC right now is the appropriate step to take.
We recognize your personal support of National Stonewall Democrats and appreciate that support. However, we are incredibly disappointed that the DNC has made a decision to withhold any financial support to National Stonewall Democrats this year but is in turn asking us to help raise money for the DNC in a difficult financial environment. The DNC has historically supported National Stonewall through sponsorship of the annual Capitol Champions event. This year, we did not receive any support. The DNC has traditionally provided materials for the many Pride parades and festivals around the country to help educate the LGBT community about why the Democratic Party is the Party for full LGBT equality. This year we were informed that we would not be receiving any materials or support for producing materials for the various nationwide Pride activities. These decisions were very disappointing.
We'd be remiss to also not mention that the recent legal brief of the Obama Administration defending DOMA is incredibly hurtful. The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels. To have our committed and loving relationships referred to as the moral equivalent of incest and pedophilia is not something that any of us ever expected from this Administration considering how hard we worked to be seen and respected. For that reason alone, advocating for attendance at a fundraiser to support the Administration and the DNC, while they have not condemned this hurtful language, is not something our membership will receive positively.
Considering the long and deep relationship between the DNC and the National Stonewall Democrats we hope that we can work together in the future and that the recent developments will not damage those close ties. We would welcome a meeting between the leadership of National Stonewall Democrats and the DNC to determine how we can continue that longstanding relationship going forward and find ways to deepen it further. Our leadership is committed to such a course and we hope that the current DNC leadership is as well.
We hope that you can understand our position and will respect our decision to not promote this event or any other future DNC fundraisers targeted towards the LGBT community at this time.
Respectfully,
Shane Larson, Melissa Sklarz, Linda Gray Murphy, Chris Massicotte, Stephen Gaskill, Babak Movahedi, Olga Hernandez, Bill Jacobs, Craig Roberts, Laurie McBride
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Petrillo
Subject: Re: Stonewall Democrats and June 25th event
Shane,
Thank you, and the Board of Directors, for this email. I definitely appreciate the thoughts and concerns you have shared and want to express my confidence that the DNC and Stonewall can and will maintain a close working relationship. The partnership that our respective organizations have shared, I believe, have strongly benefitted the LGBT community and the Democratic Party.
I do want to quickly address one item in your email. While the DNC was unable to help with Pride materials this year, I did, in a recent conversation with Kyle Bailey, express that the DNC would be able to sponsor a project with Stonewall this year. He mentioned a Young Democrat guide that Stonewall is working on and I asked for him to send a proposal for possible assistance with funding. I am sorry if that was not communicated.
I'd love to organize a meeting with Stonewall leadership and the DNC. After the event next week, I will reach out to you and Jon to work out a date and time.
I really look forward to speaking with you and look forward to growing the DNC/Stonewall relationship. Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Tom
====================================================
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11487/politely-ask-barney-frank-tammy-baldwin-and-jared-polis-why-they-are-hosting-a-dnc-fundraiser
So far, with a disgusting DOMA defense brief filed by the Obama Department of Justice and an unacceptable silence and dismissive attitude about LGBT rights now that the man in the big chair is sitting comfortably at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we've heard zero from our official, normally vocal, out Congresspeeps in the House, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and freshman Jared Polis (who also head up the equally silent Equality Caucus). Chris @ Law Dork [Twitter] notes the silence is costing credibility:
****************
Also, Obama's lack of action on LGBT issues has led friend-of-Bill and big Dem donor David Mixner, as well as blogger extraordinaire Andy Towle, to pull their support from the DNC's Stonewall celebration fund-raiser.
****************
Helming this 10th Annual LGBT Leadership Council Dinner is problematic at this juncture.
If you want to know what kind of shindig this is and how out of touch the professional gay set is with you -- the ones lacking the resources to overcome the lack of civil rights -- look at this recent eager letter (passed on to me by a trusted source) sent by Andrew Tobias to LGBT donors. Ostensibly it's to grease the wheels by telling them how exciting it will be to give to a party that's moving at light speed regarding civil rights. And that they can hobnob with those in power at the Mandarin Oriental's 10,400-square-foot spa.
This is how business as usual works "on your behalf" in D.C. Read the letter below the fold.
Pam Spaulding :: Politely ask Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis why they are hosting a DNC fundraiser
We need those in the community who have the resources to donate to the DNC to close their wallets until this administration stops the silence on our issues and makes it clear that the DOMA defense arguments are toxic to our civil rights struggle and commits to urge Congressional leadership to act by using his bully pulpit. Why should anyone donate to the DNC when this is the view of of the state of things held by powerful gay insiders?
*********************
From: Andy Tobias
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009
To: Andy Tobias
Subject: more people to sit with - and a few words on progress
Hey, so this is shaping up to be quite a dinner to CELEBRATE our progress and REAFFIRM our collective commitment to equality.
Check out whitehouse.gov http://www.whitehouse.gov/issu... : the commitment is there. It's real. Hang on.
And look what's happened in Iowa and Maine and Vermont! And what's likely to happen in New Hampshire very soon . . . and very possibly New York . . . and surely in California and New Jersey before too long.
(I love that we can now say to our more timid allies and to those not yet persuaded -- gently, respectfully -- "Are you really to the right of Ted Olson?")
This is our time.
We need to PUSH, for sure.
But we also need to HELP move the President's agenda -- which includes our own. That's the purpose of the dinner: to help fund the DNC's central project, ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA.
And we need to FOCUS -- not so much on our allies as on those (in both parties) who still need persuading ("Respectfully, Senator: are you REALLY to the right of Ted Olson?").
Barney makes that point strongly in this week's Blade -- snipurl.com/barney-blade http://snipurl.com/barney-blade .
Maybe the progress can be sped up. That would be great. And doubtless there will be snags - there are still an awful lot of people who are genuinely (or in some cases cynically) NOT with us . . . and many of them own monkey wrenches, whether we like it or not. Which is why we need a really thoughtful, deliberate path to success, much as we'd love a bolt out of the blue.
But we really are getting there.
Come help celebrate that progress and propel it forward Thursday, June 25, in Washington: the DNC's 10th Annual LGBT Leadership Council Dinner.
If you can't make the date, take a rain check and help anyway? SUZE ORMAN just signed on that way. ELIZABETH BIRCH signed on that way. Lots of others.
If you CAN make the date, you'll be joining:
Joe Biden Vice President of the United States along with...
... Virginia Governor / DNC Chair Tim Kaine, immediate past DNC Chair Howard Dean,
... Chairman Barney Frank, Representatives Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis,
... Vermont Senate President Pete Shumlin, District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty,
... David Mixner, Richard Socarides, The Task Force's Rea Carey,
... HRC's Marty Rouse, ESPA's Alan Van Capelle, GLAD's Mary Bonauto,
... NBJC's Alexander Robinson, GMHC's Marjorie Hill, The Victory Fund's Chuck Wolfe,
... Towle Road's Andy Towle, Iraq Marine vet Brian Fricke (seen on 60 Minutes),
... Billy Bean, Joan Garry, Keith Boykin, Ray Buckley, Brian Johnson, Corey Johnson,
... Dixon Osburn, Paul Smith, Bruce Bastian, Mitchell Gold, Krystal Ball
... and so many others, like YOU, who have been pushing the ball down the field for so long. (Well, Krystal is fairly new to this, but what a kick to have a pro-marriage CPA triathlete young mom running to unseat a conservative Republican in Virginia.)
Our LGBT Leadership Council co-chairs, Laura Ricketts and Paul Horning, have recruited dinner chairs and hosts from ARIZONA and VIRGINIA and OREGON and MASSACHUSETTS and FLORIDA and NORTH CAROLINA and ILLINOIS and UTAH... and, well, all over the place.
It would mean a great deal to have you with us:
www.democrats.org/LGBTdinner
Did I mention that the Mandarin Oriental has a 10,400-square-foot spa?
Did I mention that if you need to be back in Philadelphia or New York that night, there's a ten o'clock train?
Did I mention even Charles is coming down for this one? (You will make him cross if you don't come, and we don't want that.)
THANKS!
Andy
******************************************
As noted above, Andy Towle and David Mixner have already pulled their support. They realize that one tool to make our elected officials hear us is withholding the almighty dollar. It is no longer business as usual.
If you feel so inclined, please politely contact our out LGBT representatives on the Hill to ask them why they still plan to hold the event in the wake of lack of leadership re: DADT repeal and the horrible DOMA brief and 2) do they see anything problematic about financially supporting a party that runs for cover when our issues come up on the Hill.
Rep. Barney Frank: 2252 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515
tel: (202) 225-5931 fax: (202) 225-0182
Rep. Tammy Baldwin 2446 Rayburn Building Washington DC 20515
p(202) 225-6942 Fax (202) 225-2906
Rep. Jared Polis Washington, DC Office 501 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515
p. 202.225.2161 f. 202.226.7840
BTW, Rachel Maddow had Howard Dean on to discuss the schism betweed the LGBT community and the Obama administration over this horrid DOMA brief. Are our Congresspeeps listening?
UPDATE: This is breaking big; The Politico's Ben Smith has picked up on this Blend post).
UPDATE 2: Andrew Tobias responds to The Politico about his "spa letter" (that's below the fold) defending the fundraiser and the Obama admin.
"If this debacle of a brief represented the President's views, I'd boycott too," Tobias, who is organizing the fundraiser and has been one of the White House's most vocal gay defenders, said in an email. "[I] [t]otally understand all the hurt and anger, thought Joe Solmonese['s] letter to the President was spot on. Still personally totally believe in the President. His Pride Proclamation, and his call to repeal DOMA, are genuine."
Organizers, I'm told, are scrambling to get visible White House action on gay issues in advance of the June 25 dinner to prevent it from becoming a protest stage.
===================================
SF Asks Judge To Lift Gay Marriage Ban
KTVU.com and Bay City News
19 June 2009
SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco's city attorney has asked a federal judge to rule that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera argued in a brief filed in federal court in San Francisco late Thursday that the marriage ban enacted by state voters in November as Proposition 8 has no constitutionally legitimate purpose.
Herrera wrote that the goal of Proposition 8 was to express "moral disapproval" of homosexuals and said that such a purpose is discriminatory.
The city attorney wrote, "Feelings of antipathy or discomfort toward a group of people - no matter how deeply felt or widely held - are not a legitimate purpose for singling that group out for unequal treatment by the law."
"Prejudice is not a good government purpose. It doesn't suffice to uphold a law that treats people unequally," said Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco.
"Once they have a taste of what it's like to be a first class citizen, there's no going back. We're not going to let go as a community," she said.
The city's argument was submitted as a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit filed last month by a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank.
On the other side, sponsors of Proposition 8 have filed a brief arguing that "nothing in the Constitution requires such a radical redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage."
Bill May, a spokesman for Prop 8 denied it has no purpose and said the debate was about maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.
"It's a ridiculous claim that Prop 8 is motivated by hatred," said May. "It's a legitimate discussion about the definition of marriage and its consequences."
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is scheduled to hold a hearing in San Francisco on July 2 on the couples' bid for a preliminary injunction that would reinstate gay marriage in California.
The federal lawsuit was filed the day after the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as being within the initiative power of voters.
Proposition 8 overturned a 2008 decision in which the state high court said the California Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage.
Until now, legal battles during the past five years over same-sex marriage in California have centered on the provisions of the state constitution.
But the new lawsuit uses a different tactic and argues that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal treatment.
The two couples are represented by prominent attorneys Theodore Olson of Washington, D.C., and David Boies of Armonk, N.Y., who argued on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential election
===============================
Gay Couples’ Passports Can Use Married Names
by Denise Lavoie Associated Press 23 June 2009
Gay couples traveling overseas can now show passports that feature their married names, letting them take advantage of a little-noticed revision to State Department regulations that critics had feared would undermine the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The notice of the change says that it does not mean the State Department is recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages and civil unions, but that it was to comply with an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations that took effect in February 2008.
The name-change revision took effect May 27 in an addition to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual. It allows same-sex couples to obtain passports under the names recognized by their state through their marriages or civil unions.
Keith and Al Toney, of Holden, learned of the change this week and expressed relief at the end of an effort that began in 2007, when Keith applied for a passport under his married name but was denied.
"We’ll probably be going back to Costa Rica in August, and just knowing that I don’t have to hand over a passport that I considered fraudulent ... just knowing that I have an accurate passport, I feel like I can hold my head up high," Keith Toney said.
The move is separate from steps Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took this week to grant some of the same benefits to the partners of gay diplomats as those available to spouses in heterosexual marriages.
Still, groups opposed to gay marriage criticized the name-change provision, saying it erodes the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of any same-sex partnerships.
"It’s an exercise that the current administration is using to try to nibble away at the Defense of Marriage Act," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
"There’s no doubt that President Obama has made a strong commitment to repeal the DOMA ... and it will take an act of Congress to do so," Mineau said. "He cannot circumvent the law, but he attempts to do so not head-on, but in an oblique approach."
Obama said he wants to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed. But he’s been heavily criticized by gay rights groups for not moving quickly enough on his campaign promises to expand gay rights.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that campaigns nationally for gay marriage rights, said the change in passport regulations is a "very small step in the right direction," but falls "far short of the work that needs to happen to keep the federal government from discriminating against gay couples across the country."
The Toneys got married in 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Keith, whose unmarried name is Fitzpatrick, was rejected when he applied for a passport as Keith Toney. The passport agency cited the Defense of Marriage Act.
Keith Toney was forced to get a passport in his old name so he could travel with his spouse and daughter to Costa Rica, where the family owns a vacation home, he said.
During previous trips, he said, he was repeatedly questioned about why the name on his passport differed from the name on his other forms of identification, including his Massachusetts driver’s license, which had his married name.
"It was degrading, it really was," he said.
The couple later joined a lawsuit challenging the act filed by the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
GLAD received a letter from the Justice Department this week, informing the group of the change and inviting Keith Toney to submit a passport renewal application with his married name. He plans to submit his application to the Boston Passport Agency on Monday.
The separate changes instituted this week by the State Department include the right of domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports, government-paid travel to and from foreign posts, the use of U.S. medical facilities abroad, eligibility for U.S. government emergency evacuations, and training at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute.
Clinton announced the measures after Obama’s decision on Wednesday to grant some benefits to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees.
===============================================
Gay rights advocates protest DNC fundraiser
by Ira Kantor of The Boston Herald Photo by John Wilcox
c/o David Wilcox of Wicked Gay Blog (Boston, MS)
24 June 2009
"Vice President Joe Biden got an earful from furious protesters camped outside Fenway Park [map] yesterday who hurled insults at him over a recently filed anti-gay legal brief.
Biden didn’t show his face outside the ballpark Democratic fund-raiser, but that didn’t stop the angry crowd from taking aim at the administration’s stance on the Defense of Marriage Act.
Gay rights protesters chanted, “We’ll remember in November, end DOMA now.” Many gays who were staunch supporters of President Obama during his presidential bid are now on the fence after the Justice Department filed a legal brief earlier this month over DOMA that included an argument equating same-sex marriages with underage unions or incest.
“With President Bush, we kind of expected his anti-gay policies and agenda,” said Paul Sousa, 22, co-chairman of Join The Impact Massachusetts. “With Obama, we thought we were getting a friend in the White House.”
Other attendees quickly walked inside the park or stifled smiles as about 40 protesters held signs in the rain across the street from the ballyard.
Despite donating $1,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign, South End resident Rod Ferguson said his support has “waned significantly” in the wake of the brief filing.
“All of these things just to protect bigotry is just disgusting,” Ferguson, 30, said. “I haven’t donated anything since the election and I’m waiting until I see some action on LGBT rights before I will.”
====================================
Obama Fights Uphill Battle with Gay Community
by Kelly Chernenkoff Contributing Editor Row 2 Seat 4
26 June 2009 FOX NEWS
The Obama administration will continue its fight Monday to save face with the gay community, but it's a struggle that is far from resolved.
President Obama will make remarks at a reception marking the 40th anniversary of the Greenwich Village demonstrations at the Stonewall Inn in New York City. The 1969 incident marked a turning point in the battle over gay rights, when the Inn's gay patrons fought a police raid which was initiated under the guise of violations of liquor laws.
"Monday's event is a chance for the White House to recognize the accomplishments of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] Americans. Invited guests include families, volunteers and community leaders. This event was long planned as a way to applaud these individuals during Pride month," White House Spokesman Shin Inouye told Fox.
The event comes at a crucial moment in Obama's young presidency; the gay community is becoming increasingly vocal in its calls for the White House to take a more aggressive stance on gay rights issues.
Vice President Joe Biden got a taste of that frustration Thursday night, when an event he spoke at was greeted with a flurry of about 50 angry protesters. They were admonishing attendees of the DNC's LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser and urging participants to boycott it.
But Biden addressed the protesters' concerns head-on, admitting, "I am not unaware of the controversy swirling around this dinner and swirling around the speed, or lack thereof, that we are moving on issues that are of great importance to you..."
But, he added, the administration is committed to "keeping the nation focused on the unfinished business of true equality for all our people."
The source of much of the anger in the gay community, which strongly supported Obama during the election, is the slow pace of the administration's efforts to repeal the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA; a 1996 law which specifically prohibits extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
Compounding their concerns is the fact that the Obama Justice Department has argued for the constitutionality of DOMA in court. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has explained the conflict this way, "[T]he Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed."
At this point, the White House does retain the benefit of the doubt of many in the LGBT community.
All three openly-gay members of Congress, Representatives Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank and Jared Polis, attended the democratic fundraiser. Some well-known activists, like David Mixner, were among the boycotters.
However, the protesters weren't able to shave off much money, since the event raised around $1 million, out-performing last year's take when Michelle Obama was the speaker.
Biden pledged to the attendees that the administration will "put some pace on the ball" in getting something done. In the meantime, the White House is still going through the motions.
===========================================
Posts on AMERICA blog by John Aravosis or Joe Sudbay
12 June 2009 21:44 Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
17 June 2009 16:04 Gibbs: President stands behind incest/pedophilia brief Quotes from Jake Tappers Q&A on Political Punch (also cited above)
19 June 2009 17:14 Top Obama aides holding conf. call with LGBT members of the DNC on Monday afternoon
19 June 2009 18:45 Obama admin rebuffed gay legal groups on DOMA, Part II
It seems that President Obama's Department of Justice is just livid over the Washington Post's Plum Line [] blog, and its earlier article about how Obama's DOJ and OPM refused to work with gay legal groups who were trying to find a way to work around DOMA in order to give federal employees health and other benefits. DOJ is reportedly claiming that Plum Line's story is wrong.
The story is of course damaging to President Obama since this week he held an Oval Office ceremony in which he signed a memo directing federal agencies to prepare a list of possible benefits they might be able to give the partners of gay federal employees. Not included in that list is health benefits, because the administration claims that Obama wanted to include them, but DOMA precludes them. If, in fact, President Obama's OPM and DOJ have been actively working to thwart the efforts of gay legal groups to figure out how to provide such benefits under the law, then that would make President Obama out to be a bit of a liar, wouldn't it.
The Plum Line's story is seriously damaging to an administration already reeling from a gay donor boycott, and the overall PR disaster that comes when you accuse an entire civil rights community of being akin to incest and pedophilia. So DOJ needs to fight back in order to be able to tell the power gays around the country on Monday's DNC call [http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/top-obama-aides-holding-conf-call-with.html], and in next week's meeting with gay groups, that the Plum Line's story has been disproven.
The thing is, it hasn't.
Let me walk you again through what the Plum Line wrote, and then through what the administration's on the record response has been.
Plum Line quotes GLAD attorney Gary Buseck:
“We thought it would be a good idea to sit down with top folks at Justice to talk about this [DOMA] lawsuit and what it meant and to engage in more cooperative lawyering,” Buseck tells me. “They told us that they didn’t want to meet with us.” The government’s response in the case is due later this month, and gay rights activists are watching closely to see if it’s similar to the one in the California case that’s generating so much controversy.
Plum Line quotes Lambda Legal's Jennifer Pizer:
“We have communicated through a couple of different channels asking [OPM] to provide legal analysis to support their position,” Ms. Pizer told me. “We said, `At a minimum, give us your legal analysis so we can engage with you.’ The response was, `No, we’re not changing our position.’ That’s not what we expect from an administration whose leader speaks so emphatically about thinking discrimination is wrong.”
So, we have two gay lawyers saying that in the past several months both DOJ and OPM refused to work with those groups, to sit down with them, to give them their legal arguments for why they thought DOMA prohibited these benefits. In a nutshell, the Obama administration wasn't interested in helping gay civil rights groups find a legal way to provide health care benefits to gay federal employees.
What does DOJ have to say about this? They say they've now scheduled a meeting with the big gay groups for next week, to discuss the community's concerns.
That's nice.
Having a meeting NEXT WEEK does not, however, deny having IN THE PAST FIVE MONTHS refused GLAD's and Lambda Legal's earlier requests to work with you in an effort to provide gay federal employees benefits such as health care. You haven't proven a story wrong when you give a statement that doesn't address the story's key allegations.
===========================================
The WASHINGTON POST's PLUM LINE BLOG by Greg Sargent=============================================
Post 1 Gay Rights Lawyers: Obama Administration Rebuffed Our Requests For Dialogue
Post 2 Obama Administration Set To Hold Powwow With Big Gay Groups
24 June 2009 20:41 Letter to Obama from: Michael B. Keegan President People For The American Way = Best Letter to Obama on gay issues comes from straight group
24 June 2009 22:24 SLDN invites Fehrenbach to WHITEHOUSE
SLDN invited Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, facing discharge under DADT, to the WhiteHouse gay cocktail party by Joe Sudbay
25 June 2009 16:45 On gay rights, the country is already in the age of Obama, but he's governing from the Clinton era. ~Richard Socarides
The Associated Press
25 June 2009 17:49 On the DNC's gay fundraiser controversy:
It started with that hateful DOMA brief by Joe Sudbay
25 June 2009 01:06 New Protections for TG Fed Workers being drafted
26 June 2009 01:03 DNC LGBT caucus member responds
9 points of Admin priorities list including UN Resolution on GLBT Rights.
26 June 2009 16:25 Don't expect any action or big announcement on DADT or DOMA
DNC and the White House are telling everyone who will listen that there's going to be a BIG announcement Monday on gay rights.
Later in the briefing, Gibbs once again slammed the door on any hopes for presidential announcements on DADT or DOMA.
So, if you're at the big gay White House party on Monday to honor LGBT Pride Month, just smile pretty for the cameras.
26 June 2009 20:16 Biden doesn't get it
Biden yesterday about the gay brouhaha:
“I am not unaware of the controversies swirling around this dinner,” Biden said, “swirling around the speed -- or lack thereof -- that we’re moving on issues that are of great importance to you and, quite frankly, to me and to the President and to millions of Americans.”
No, it's not the lack of speed. It's the fact that you compared us to pedophiles and incest. The fact that you're still kicking out two gay service members a day, and that you have the power to implement a stop-loss order immediately.
The sad part is, it's actually possible that no one even told him what the problem actually is.
The DNC is spinning the event as a million dollar fundraiser. We've seen reports that there were 180 people there -- and not sure all of them paid. Rumors are the haul was probably closer to $250,000, which is still a lot of money. We'll have to see if today's spin matches the actual numbers. The DNC has to file FEC reports every month. The next reporting deadline is Tuesday, June 30th. So, we'll see the reports in July. Then, we'll know who gave and how much.
27 June 2009 14:55 Democrats and Political Homophobia
Merriam-Webster defines homophobia this way:
Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
We all know practitioners of homophobia -- mostly Republicans, right-wingers, Catholic leaders, etc.
There is, however, a version of homophobia that is much more insidious: Political Homophobia.
Political homophobes aren't gay-hating in the traditional sense. In fact, publicly, most are strong supporters of LGBT equality. But, behind closed doors, many Democratic leaders, consultants, Hill staffers and the rest will vociferously argue that there is no political benefit to actually supporting LGBT rights. Political homophobia is rampant among some Democrats. In some ways, it's worse than blatant homophobia, since we think most Democrats are on our side. And outwardly, they are.
Political homophobia dictates policy in DC more than we'd like to think. I believe it's happening in the West Wing right now. I've been told by several people that while the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, isn't a homophobe in the traditional way (he always voted the right way when he was in the House), he is always the first person to suggest that his colleagues (and now boss) avoid gay issues. He'd rather not deal with them because he thinks they're bad politics.
Now, maybe in 1993 that was true. But Rahm, if he truly is the problem behind the throne, doesn't grasp the change in society over the past two decades. He also doesn't understand that the American people think Obama is a different kind of politician - one who will do what he says because it's the right thing to do.
The West Wing's political homophobia is not only damaging relations with the LGBT community, it's damaging the Obama brand. And even a politician obsessed with "bad politics" knows that this isn't good.
27 June 2009 23:15 A fierce Democratic donor writes
Dear DNC, I truly "support" Democrats being elected in 2010 and 2012. I am a "fierce advocate" of the Democratic Party after all. I know that I have promised you my support over the past few decades and have done my best to follow through.
Even now I am "working towards" a financial donation to the Party. I do have to ask for your "patience" though, because as a gay man, my family and I are still second class citizens and are having to funnel our resources towards causes that protect and honor our basic civil rights. "We have a lot on our plate."
We are "proceeding" towards lifting the denial of funds to the DNC and are "developing a strategy" that will get us there by the end of Obama's time at the White House. As a matter of fact, my family has planned several "meetings" to discuss these very important donations and will be sending out a press release shortly to announce our "cocktail party" celebrating Democracy.
Thanks for understanding. And hang in there! Sincerely, Liam
27 June 2009 18:59 SLDN protested against DADT at the White House today
According to press pool reports, President Obama was at the White House today. I hope he heard the noise from the protest organized by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). The group collected 265 buttons, symbolizing the 265 servicemembers who have been discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell since Obama took office, for delivery to the President.
As we all know, the President committed to ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeatedly during the primaries and general election. But, it hasn't happened. Nothing has. As Obama said on his campaign website:
America is ready to get rid of the Don't Ask, Dont Tell policy. All that is required is leadership.
Leadership. Yes. It is needed.
It's really quite sad that SLDN has to protest to get the attention of the White House. But, we are where we are and this White House needs pressure. If you haven't called yet, the number is 202-456-1414. Tell Obama to end the DADT policy -- he has the power. Yes, we want a legislative repeal, but Obama can stop the discharges NOW. He is the leader.
28 June 2009 14:20 Frank Rich: 40 Years Later, Still Second-Class Americans c/o New York Times Opinion Editorial
28 June 2009 18:49 NYT's Nagourney on the gay brouhaha
This is, I think, the crux of the problem. Obama will do nothing that gives social conservatives an excuse to bitch and moan. He's never going to get fulfilling his major promises on gay rights, nor most of his other major "progressive" promises, provided he continues to live in mortal fear that someone on the right might get mad at him.
29 June 2009 09:32 A message for those LGBT 'leaders' going to the Big Gay White House Party: "Let Victor Fehrenbacher speak to the President or else"
29 June 2009 11:58 A note to our dear gay leaders
29 June 2009 18:30 Obama and the big gay party
30 June 2009 10:00 63 women out of 176 invitees (that's 36%)
I was just going through the invite list to the White House gay party last night. I counted around 63 women out of around 176 invitees.
113 men (64%) 63 women (36%)
That would be a bit more than one-third women invited to a major civil rights event hosted by a Democratic president. Let me explain something. For good or for bad, and I happen to think it's good, when a big liberal group or politician holds a public event, they try to get a representative mix of people showing up. ...you pay attention to how many women you have, or haven't, invited, how many African-Americans, etc.
30 June 2009 12:20 Gay White House attendee says our leaders were "wide-eyed" at Obama's feet Quoting Tom Gregory Tony nominated Producer, (cited below also)
30 June 2009 20:03 Help a servicemember kicked out because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell serve in Congress Tony Wood running for Ellen Tauschers seat
30 June 2009 21:53 Gay leader Ann Northrop has a question for President Obama
"I want to clear up one thing re: DOMA.
Obama is required to obey the law. He is not required not to challenge the constitutionality of the law in court.
These are entirely different things. Our complaint about Bush was that he made up his own interpretations of laws--a rogue administration. That's not what we're asking of Obama. We're asking him to go into court to question whether the law is actually legal.
Why don't people understand this? And why does Obama either lie or just act confused about this himself? ~ Ann Northrop"
01 July 2007 09:49 Defense chief looks into making DADT more "humane"
Splitting that baby in half is being raised to an art form in the Obama administration. It's as if they think if they just hand us a few crumbs, maybe we'll go away - or more likely, maybe they'll be able to say "look at all the things we've done, and you're STILL whining?!" Obama is also hoping, I suspect, that he can con some naive gay rights organization into welcoming this "bold move" in order to give him cover for the DOMA incest brief and the ongoing DADT discharges. And once upon a time that might have been enough. I suspect Obama already has a group or three in his pocket, but as was proven over the past few weeks, the gay rights groups no longer control the community nor the agenda. And more importantly, the community isn't stupid. Finding more "humane" ways to discriminate against us is not going to, I think, placate people. Rather, this "3/5ths a man" solution may just infuriate the community all the more.
As an aside, it's interesting that Obama, who has been claiming that he must obey the letter of every law (well, actually, only the letter of anti-gay laws) is now trying to twist the law in ways that Congress may not have intended. Rather than trying to carve some questionable loophole out of existing law, why not just use his unquestioned power to issue a stop-loss order halting the discharges pending a legislative repeal? Good question.
01 July 2009 18:45 DNC may have lied about $1m take from fundraiser; DNC insider says blogs are right on party's intentions towards gays
Gee, no one could have guessed that one. Pam (Spaulding) has a source inside the DNC that says they're lucky if they raised $250,000, not $1m. Pam's source also says that the DNC has pretty much written off doing anything of substance on gay issues until after "the election" - not clear if that means waiting until 2011, 2013, or the end of the Obama administration in 2016.
Pam's insider adds:
[T]he blogs are closer to the truth [on how the Dems plan to handle gay issues] than the party wants us to know. They used the blogs to their advantage during the election, and now they're trying to figure out how to control what's become a nuisance for them. The current method for the fundraiser is by not telling the truth.
The Democratic party finds you and your civil rights a nuisance.
UPDATE: Mike Signorile has also been investigating the claims about the DNC fundraiser and the alleged $1 million raised. He's been asking a lot of questions, but getting no answers.
02 July 2009 15:20 Obama deputy campaign manager (Steve Hildebrand) abandons DOMA & DADT as priorities (during recent article on The Huffington Post)
===========================================
27 June 2009 Political Shifts on Gay Rights Lag Behind Culture
by Adam Nagourney Political Memo The New York Times
WASHINGTON — For 15 minutes in the Oval Office the other day, one of President Obama’s top campaign lieutenants, Steve Hildebrand, told the president about the “hurt, anxiety and anger” that he and other gay supporters felt over the slow pace of the White House’s engagement with gay issues.
But on Monday, 250 gay leaders are to join Mr. Obama in the East Room to commemorate publicly the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern gay rights movement: a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York. By contrast, the first time gay leaders were invited to the White House, in March 1977, they met a midlevel aide on a Saturday when the press and President Jimmy Carter were nowhere in sight.
The conflicting signals from the White House about its commitment to gay issues reflect a broader paradox: even as cultural acceptance of homosexuality increases across the country, the politics of gay rights remains full of crosscurrents.
It is reflected in the surge of gay men and lesbians on television and in public office, and in polls measuring a steady rise in support for gay rights measures. Despite approval in California of a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, it has been authorized in six states.
Yet if the culture is moving on, national politics is not, or at least not as rapidly. Mr. Obama has yet to fulfill a campaign promise to repeal the policy barring openly gay people from serving in the military. The prospects that Congress will ever send him a bill overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, appear dim. An effort to extend hate-crime legislation to include gay victims has produced a bitter backlash in some quarters: Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, sent a letter to clerics in his state arguing that it would be destructive to “faith, families and freedom.”
“America is changing more quickly than the government,” said Linda Ketner, a gay Democrat from South Carolina who came within four percentage points of winning a Congressional seat in November. “They are lagging behind the crowd. But if I remember my poli sci from college, isn’t that the way it always works?”
Some elected Democrats in Washington remain wary because they remember how conservatives used same-sex marriage and gay service in the military against them as political issues. The Obama White House in particular is reluctant to embrace gay rights issues now, officials there say, because they do not want to provide social conservatives a rallying cry while the president is trying to assemble legislative coalitions on health care and other initiatives.
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a group that opposes gay rights initiatives, said Mr. Obama’s reluctance to push more assertively for gay rights reflected public opinion.
“He’s given them a few minor concessions; they’re asking for more, such as ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ being repealed,” Mr. Perkins said. “The administration is not willing to go there, and I think there’s a reason for that, and that is because I think the American public isn’t there.”
Conservative Democrats have at best been unenthusiastic about efforts to push gay rights measures in Congress; 30 Democrats voted against a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation that passed the House in 2007. (It died in the Senate.) And a half-dozen Democrats declined requests to discuss this issue, reflecting what aides called the complicated politics surrounding it.
Still, there are signs that the issue is not as pressing or toxic as it once was. “I don’t think it’s the political deal-breaker it once was,” said Dave Saunders, a southern Virginia Democratic consultant who has advised Democrats running for office in conservative rural areas. “Most people out here really don’t care because everybody has gay friends.”
Interviews with gay leaders suggest a consensus that there has been nothing short of a cultural transformation in the space of just a few years, even if it is reflected more in the evolving culture of the country than in the body of its laws.
“The diminution of the homophobia has been as important a phenomena as anything we’ve seen in the last 15 years,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is gay.
Democrats now control the White House and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, increasing the chances of legislative action. Mr. Frank said that over the next two years, he expected Congress to overturn the ban on gay service in the military, pass legislation prohibiting discrimination against hiring gay workers, and extend the hate-crime bill to crimes involving gay couples.
There is also an emerging generational divide on gay issues — younger Americans tend to have more liberal positions — that has fueled what pollsters said was a measurable liberalization in views on gay rights over the past decade.
A New York Times/CBS News poll last spring found that 57 percent of people under 40 said they supported same-sex marriage, compared with 31 percent of respondents over 40. Andy Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, said the generational shift was reflected in his polling, in which the number of Americans opposing gay people serving openly in the military had dropped to 32 percent now from 45 percent in 1994.
David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, said, “You look at polling and attitudes among younger people on these issues are startlingly different than older people.”
“As generational change happens,” Mr. Axelrod added, “that’s going to be more and more true.”
In the view of many gay leaders, the shifts in public attitude are a validation of the central political goal set by the dozens of gay liberation groups that sprouted up in cities and on college campuses in the months after the Stonewall uprising: to have gay men and lesbians who had been living in secret go public as a way of dealing with societal fear and prejudice.
But there is considerable evidence that this is still an issue that stirs political concerns. Gay leaders have increasingly complained about what they call Mr. Obama’s slow pace in fulfilling promises he made during his campaign. Some boycotted a Democratic Party fund-raiser recently to show their distress.
“I have been really surprised how paralyzed they seem around this,” said Richard Socarides, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues.
Mr. Hildebrand did not respond to calls and e-mail messages asking about his encounter with Mr. Obama, which he described in a private e-mail forum for gay political leaders. (The meeting was confirmed by senior White House officials.)
Still, David Mixner, a longtime gay leader, said he was struck by how things had changed.
“Listen,” Mr. Mixner said, “in 1992, what we were begging Bill Clinton about — literally — about whether he was going to say the word ‘gay’ in his convention speech. Even say it. We had to threaten a walkout to get it in.”
=========================================
TOWLEROAD
The Invitation List for the Big WhiteHouse Gay Bash
and text of Presidents speech to the Queer Community for Stonewall
========================================
Gay America's Afternoon in the White House
by Tom Gregory @ The Huffington Post
30 June 2009 02:30
Even with its bulletproof glass, handsomely clad guards, vibrant colors, master paintings, and lavish food and drink, my visit to the White House Monday left me dissatisfied. The Obama Administration assembled a group of two hundred or more of America's well-heeled leaders for equality, but like little doggies most were wide-eyed at his feet.
Politicians work for us. If they do their job with good intention, they demand our respect. They deserve fervent applause when they are heroic. Today I expected to hear the explanations of a champion knocked off his path by a country in financial distress, but instead I heard platitudes, cracked promises, and disappointments. Still, the crowd cheered for more.
President Obama would be well served to offer an emotional response to the discrimination and bigotry suffered by gay Americans. At Monday's address, the President renewed thin promises while asking for patience. There was no message indicating that homophobia is the problem, not homosexuals. Without an outward push from our President, the evangelical undertow will continue to pull America's common sense into the darkness. Church and state must stop sharing the same bed. I support President Obama in a race towards that end -- surely then, equal rights will follow.
Today's address left me wanting. The pain experienced by homosexuals is deadly tragic. Annually, thousands of American children kill themselves due to the bigotry pervasive across America.
In today's speech President Obama said gay America would be happy by the time his administration is over. If he doesn't stop offering excuses and empty promises, they will be.
=========================================
DOJ moves to dismiss first fed gay marriage case
By LINDA DEUTSCH, Special Correspondent
12 June 2009 09:42 The Associated Press
The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court, saying it is not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California.
The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.
"This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment ... on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."
It's a different case from a recent federal lawsuit by two unmarried gay couples in California who claim a civil right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.
The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.
"Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no," the motion states.
The 54-page document traces the history of the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 at a time when states and their citizens were just beginning to address the legal status of same-sex marriage.
"DOMA does not address whether a same-sex couple may marry within the United States," the motion says. "Instead, it permits the citizens of each state to decide that question for themselves."
Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department, as it generally does, is defending existing law in court.
"The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
The case was originally filed last year in California state court before heading to federal court. It claims violation of a number of federal rights including the right to privacy, the right to travel and the right of free expression under the First Amendment.
The government's filing said the suit would fail under each of those grounds. While it addressed each argument, it claimed the suit should be dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs to bring the claim in federal court.
In a separate filing, the California attorney general moved Thursday to dismiss the state lawsuit by the same couple, saying Hammer and Smelt lack standing to sue because their marriage was unaffected in any way by the passage of Proposition 8, the voter-approved gay marriage ban.
The attorney general's motion noted there are likely to be more federal suits and referred to "at least one highly publicized challenge (that) has already been filed."
That case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, drew wide attention because it was filed by David Boies and Theodore Olson, the two lawyers who opposed each other in the famed election challenge in Bush v. Gore in 2000. The suit raises different issues seeking to frame gay marriage as a federal civil right.
"Our lawsuit squarely presents the federal constitutional challenges to Proposition 8's marriage ban, which are not presented in the Smelt case because those plaintiffs are already married. We believe our arguments are exceedingly strong," Theodore Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team in that case, said Thursday night.
On May 26, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.
In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
========================================
01 July Fantasy and Reality by Stan of Metro Dystopia (New Jersey)
========================================
When Johnny Comes Marching Home to no job
Indiana National Guard Unit returns home to job market bedlam
by Mike Brunker Project Team Leader MSNBC 03 July 2009
EDINBURGH, Ind.— The return of the Elkhart-based Indiana National Guard’s 1538th Transportation Company from Iraq this week was a joyous occasion. About 400 friends and family members lustily cheered and applauded the unit’s 182 citizen-soldiers as they marched in formation into a hangar at Stout Field in Indianapolis.
The gathering might have been even more boisterous were it not for the realization that these Guardsmen are coming home to face a new enemy — a swooning economy that has landed like a KO’d heavyweight on the canvas of their home towns.
The 1538th sustained no casualties during its almost 10 months in Iraq ferrying supplies and providing security for U.S. military convoys, perhaps in part by obeying its unofficial motto, “Drive it like you stole it.” But the same can’t be said for the jobs its members left behind.
Forty-six soldiers — fully 25 percent of the company — have no work awaiting them, including many whose jobs vanished while they were heeding their nation’s call.
“They pretty much said there’s nothing to come back to, better start looking for another job,” said Pfc. Jonathan Maher, 20, of the Elkhart County community of Bristol, recalling the letter he received from his employer, Keystone RV, shortly after Christmas.
With one foot in the military and one in the civilian world, National Guard and Reserve soldiers typically are more susceptible than members of the active duty services to economic downturns. While they serve, their civilian jobs are protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), but that is no help when layoffs occur, unless discrimination can be demonstrated.
That’s a point being driven home for many members of the 1538th. It draws most of its members from Elkhart County and other areas of northern Indiana that have some of the highest unemployment rates in the U.S. following the collapse of the RV industry and other key manufacturing sectors.
Elkhart-Goshen's unemployment rate was 17.5 percent in May, an increase of 11.4 percentage points from a year earlier. That's much larger than the national jobless rate of 9.5 percent in June, which is itself at a 26-year high.
Maher, who had saved enough money to buy a house after 2-½ years in Keystone’s receiving department, had to back out on a pending offer after learning he had been let go. Now he’s going to move back in with his mom and stepdad.
“They had told us when we left that we had nothing to worry about,” he said matter of factly. “I was shocked at first, but I just figured I’d go deal with it and figure something else out.”
Maher appears to be one of the lucky ones, having lined up a new job welding UMP dirt racecars for a South Bend company, thanks to the recommendation of a fellow mechanic he served with in Iraq.
But many others are expecting to hit the bricks as soon as they get home this weekend after demobilization at Camp Atterbury, a sprawling training camp about 40 miles south of Indianapolis.
Sgt. Russell See of Elkhart said he found out in April that his job as a welder at Valmont Industries had vanished, a development that was communicated via an e-mail from the human resources department.
“It kind of floored me at first,” said the 41-year-old See, who worked in a unit building steel light poles which the company eliminated. “You’re feeling comfortable and cushy with a steady paycheck from the government and suddenly you’ve got to look at how you’re going to keep your head above water.”
The resumés that See has dispatched in advance of his return have yielded no offers. He has some savings, some accrued leave and will be eligible for unemployment benefits. But with a new house purchased for $65,000 just days before he was laid off, he figures he has only eight months or so to either find a job or consider what is now almost unthinkable — signing up for a third tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.
“I’ll have to do something, but it really starts hitting you more the older you get,” he said of the stresses of a combat mission.
Returning soldiers interviewed by msnbc.com at Camp Atterbury said they were generally aware of the economic mayhem unfolding at home while serving in Iraq, but found it difficult to follow the story from afar.
Spec. Joseph Dilts of Fulton County commuted to a job as a plastics handler for Plastics Solutions Inc., in South Bend, before being laid off a month ago. The 37-year-old said he learned that his job was gone after receiving an urgent phone call from his wife telling him to call work. When he did, he found out that his entire section had been eliminated.
Dilts said he had become concerned when he saw televised reports in Iraq about the stock market’s steep decline and the horrific sales and earnings posted by the auto industry. Still, he said, it was shocking to hear about the layoff because it was difficult to piece together the story when he was only able to catch snatches of newscasts.
'It doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop fighting'
“I saw President Obama go to Elkhart,” he said. “I didn’t really understand why he was going, but then I heard about the RV industry.”
Dilts said he is looking to take advantage of programs the Guard offers to assist returning soldiers and is considering returning to school. Asked what sorts of jobs he would look for in the near term, he said he would likely draw on his military experience and look for work in transportation or security.
Pfc. Christine McAllister, 22, of Elkhart, said she got most of her stateside news by phone while she was in Iraq.
“I didn’t watch much news while I was in Iraq because I didn’t have time, but my mom was always telling me what was going on in Elkhart … and that everyone was getting laid off,” she said.
McAllister is among the unemployed returning Guards, but by choice.
She said she quit her job as a security guard at Godfrey Marine in Elkhart when she left with a long-term goal in mind.
“I’ve always wanted to be a nurse, and I’m going to use all my military benefits to do that,” said McAllister. She plans to attend Ivy Tech Community College full time and to continue to serve in the Guard after graduating.
But for others, the active duty paycheck from the Guard provided a safety net that will soon be withdrawn.
Spec. Heather Smiechowski, 25, of South Bend said she is concerned about her ability to land a good civilian sector job because she sometimes needs to take time off on short notice to care for her autistic daughter, the youngest of her three children. She said she has a little breathing room, after saving everything she could from her pay while in Iraq while sending back money to her grandfather to help pay for her children’s care while she was gone.
“I’m going to take some time off and spend it with the kids … and then I’m going to hopefully get a decent job to where I could support the three of them and myself, and hopefully still have the leeway to get the care my daughter needs,” she said.
“But my confidence really isn’t too high,” she said of her job prospects. “I understand when people need someone to be there … and they’ve got this person who can’t because they have to do the things that I have to do. I mean I understand, but it doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop fighting.”
The Indiana National Guard has taken note of the hardship that Guards like Smiechowski are facing and is attempting to help.
It launched a new Employment Coordination Program in May that already has placed about a dozen Guards in jobs, said Scott Mitten, a hard-charging ex-Army Ranger brought in to run the operation. He also has developed a Web site to match jobs with out-of-work Guardsmen or other veterans. On Thursday, the site had 88 jobs listed, including 35 in the civilian sector.
With the innovative program just getting up to speed, the 1538th will be an important test because its commanders were the first to report “quality numbers” on its soldiers’ employment status, he said.
Mitten said he already has begun contacting transportation companies, both local and national, and “explaining that we have a batch of Guardsmen coming home and we’re looking to create 46 careers.”
He said he doesn’t think his job will be difficult, as employers have so far been very receptive.
“The employers know what they’re going to get when they hire a serviceman, a veteran, a Guardsman, a Reservist — the discipline, the drive, the training, the education and the ability to stick with the task,” he said.
In other words, he said, his job is comparable to selling a fine watch.
“No one sells Rolex,” he said. “You have to sell other brands, but a Rolex sells itself.”
