Well, It Took A While

But it does: the Armed Forces are very thorough:

The Pentagon plans to announce the repeal of its ban on transgender service members July 1, a controversial decision that would end nearly a year of internal wrangling among the services on how to allow those troops to serve openly, according to Defense officials.

Top personnel officials plan to meet as early as Monday to finalize details of the plan, and Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work could sign off on it by Wednesday, according to a Defense official familiar with the timetable but who spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly about it. Final approval would come from Defense Secretary Ash Carter, and the announcement will be on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend.

The plan would direct each branch of the armed services over a one-year period to implement new policies affecting recruiting, housing and uniforms for transgender troops, one official said.

And as usual, there's a Republican congressman from Texas bitching and moaning about it:

“If reports are correct, I believe Secretary Carter has put the political agenda of a departing administration ahead of the military’s readiness crisis," Thornberry said. "The force is exhausted from back to back deployments and spending their home-station time scrambling to get enough equipment and training before they deploy again. My focus is on helping the troops now — to be the most effective, deployable force possible.

Back to back deployments because we've had to extricate ourselves from the mess the last Republican administration left in the Middle East.

"In particular, there are readiness challenges that first must be addressed, such as the extent to which such individuals would be medically non-deployable. . . ."

There are an estimate 2,500 transgender enlisted personnel. That's obviously going to have a huge impact on the readiness of a military force that numbers just over 1.3 million enlisted personnel, plus another 800,000 plus in the reserves.

But back to the main topic. I can't help but wonder how much of that "internal wrangling" was obstructionism. I do have to hand it to the Pentagon, though: once DADT was repealed and the necessity was plain, they've really focused on making open service work.

And in related news:

Navy Department officials are urging the thousands of sailors and Marines forced out of the military because of their sexuality in previous decades to come forward and appeal their discharge — in a step to restore benefits and right a historical wrong.

The Board for Correction of Naval Records can overturn a wide range of records, from counseling letters to detachments for cause, but recently they have been putting the word out to veterans who were separated because of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — and its previous across-the-board ban — that they can have their discharges upgraded and their reenlistment codes or reason codes changed to reflect a post-DADT world.

Both via Joe.My.God.

Dear Republicans: Overturn This!

From USA Today:

Spc. Shane Adriano and Pfc. Tristian Resz chose the Greene County Courthouse as a venue because they wanted something small and intimate for their Feb. 11 wedding. It was to be just the happy couple, a few supportive friends and a judge.

But after they shared their "first married kiss" photo on Facebook, their small ceremony turned into a worldwide event.

Marriage and the military. SNAP!

(And they do make a really cute couple. Best wishes, guys.)

Via Joe.My.God.

The Empire Strikes Back

Remember those states in which the National Guard was refusing to issue military IDs to same-sex spouses because of their state anti-marriage laws? Well, DoD is coming right back at them. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in a speech to the ADL:

The balance between security and civil rights sends an important message to the world. At the Department of Defense, we work to preserve America’s individual liberties as well as defend our freedom.

When the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Defense of Marriage Act this summer, the Department of Defense immediately began working on providing the same benefits to all eligible spouses, regardless of sexual orientation. We did it because everyone who serves our country in uniform should receive the full benefits they earned, fairly and in accordance with the law. Everyone’s rights must be protected.

This means that all spouses of service members are entitled to DoD ID cards, and the benefits that come with them. But several states are refusing to issue these IDs to same-sex spouses at National Guard facilities. Not only does this violate the states’ obligations under federal law, their actions have created hardship and inequality by forcing couples to travel long distances to federal military bases to obtain the ID cards they’re entitled to.

This is wrong. It causes division among the ranks, and it furthers prejudice, which DoD has fought to extinguish.

Today, I directed the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank Grass, to take immediate action to remedy this situation. At my direction, he will meet with the Adjutants General from the states where these ID cards are being denied. The Adjutants General will be expected to comply with both lawful direction and DoD policy, in line with the practices of 45 other states and jurisdictions.

The states involved now number nine (it's spread, like a virus -- last time I paid attention to this, it was four or five): Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Indiana, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and West Virginia. Note that all have Republican governors and/or Republican majorities in the state legislatures. (I'm surprised Kansas isn't in the group.)

My guess is that at least one state AG will file suit to block the orders, with no hope of success. Whatever their feelings about same-sex marriage, they're up against the Supremacy Clause, and their ultimate commander is in Washington, not the local state house.

This is what the Republican party has become, and we've seen it in voting rights, reproductive rights (any guesses on which state is going to be the first to try to outlaw condoms?), and now gay civil rights. They'll chip away with restrictive state laws, frivolous law suits, anything they think they can get away with, hoping, I guess, that the tide will turn and the entire country will see the light.

And they're going to lose. Get ready for a big dose of Schadenfreude.

Via AmericaBlog.

Crackpot du Jour

I think the American "Family" Association breeds them, with Bryan Fischer as the donor. Sandy Rios is trying really hard to fill his shoes. Her thoughts (such as they are) on intervention in Syria:

It’s getting more exaggerated. This is the nature of John Kerry, he always does this; he’s not to be trusted. This is the reason why I think we have to be concerned about going into Syria because the people that we’re looking at to lead us are untrustworthy people. There’s a second reason and that is military readiness. When I looked at those battleships going into the Mediterranean, supposedly getting ready for battle in Syria, I couldn’t help think about all the stories I’ve read about how women now are in the ranks of the Navy, getting pregnant at exponential numbers; when I think about the folding in and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the homosexual takeover of so much of our military I’m not sure how effective those naval ships will be.

If you can get through the word salad on John Kerry -- and who should we trust? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? -- this little screed is close to hysterically funny. The funniest part is Rios pretending that she has any sense whatsoever of our military readiness. Women in the ranks of the Navy "getting pregnant at exponential numbers"? Huh? I'd love to see the statistics on that. As for DADT repeal and the effectiveness of the Navy, I have news for Ms. Rios: the Navy has always been very gay. Those ships are going to be just as effective as they've always been, probably more so, since no one has to lie about who they are any more to do their duty.

(A side note: the "Christian" right is trying, apparently, to push the idea that, since the repeal of DADT, gays are flocking to join the Armed Forces. I've seen no indication that there are more than there have always been. Of course, if you're a professional paranoid, the vast gay conspiracy to take over the country has to start somewhere. Let's just not tell them how many gays and lesbians work on Wall Street.)

There's audio at the link, if you can stand to listen. I can't.

Today's Must Read

This post, from a gay Marine, about DADT repeal and attending the Marine Corps Birthday Ball with a date for the first time.

It's long, but read all four parts. With people like this man defending us, I feel better.

Sometimes It Works (Updated)

A heartening story from AP:

A federal judge in New York has struck down a $285 million settlement that Citigroup reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission, citing a need for truth about the financial markets.

My guess is that Citigroup will appeal the decision, and when it gets to the Supremes, they will find that corporations have as much right to secrecy as, for example, the President.

Update:

Just ran across this story, which fits right in with the meme:

Since the lifting two months ago of a longstanding U.S. ban on gays serving openly in the military, U.S. Marines across the globe have adapted smoothly and embraced the change, says their top officer, Gen. James F. Amos, who previously had argued against repealing the ban during wartime.

You'll remember that Amos was the most outspoken of the service chiefs in his opposition to repeal. But the Marines are the Marines: as he said then, if it's the law, they will follow it. They are, and not the least bit grudgingly -- you'll remember that they were the only branch of service to send recruiters to San Diego Pride, although all were invited.

And add on to that this little bit from Good As You. In this case, a picture is worth a thousand words:

Via Box Turtle Bulletin, this story from AP on Capt. Steven Hill, the soldier who asked Rick Santorum about reinstating DADT and got boos from some of the audience for his audacity.

Santorum's response is typical of the man, and shows starkly why he's not fit to be commander in chief or anything that remotely resembles president of the United States:

Santorum replied that he would reinstitute the ban on open service by gay troops because "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."

"What we are doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That's tragic," he continued. "Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual."

The "social experimentation" line is laughable. The military has always been a social experiment -- it's not like civilian life at all.

And of course, Santorum's obsessed with sex. But we knew that.

What's heartening is the response from Hill's commander:

At breakfast later that morning, the segment was playing on the chow hall television. Hill immediately tracked down his commander, who told him she had no problem with what he'd done but that she would need to run it up the chain of command. She later relayed the response.

"She said, 'What the military's most concerned with is that you are OK, because it's a lot of pressure on you and we want to make sure if there is anything we can do to help,'" he recalled.

There's hope.

Not so much for the members of the audience and all the presidential wannabes who just sat there and said nothing as a member of our armed forces was booed.

About Face, Forward March

From Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the U.S. Marines:

That's the way it's supposed to be.

Only Good Stuff Today

Because I've been down in the dumps and need it.

First, this story about the Oregon U.S. Attorney's office's It Gets Better video:

Ever since he heard Savage talk about the "It Gets Better" project, Holton said making a video has been on his to-do list. He said he wasn't sure what to expect when he put out the call for participants, and he was moved by his colleagues' willingness to share their personal experiences. Since the video was posted to Youtube last week, he's heard from other U.S. attorneys across the country interested in doing their own videos. . . .

"The U.S. Attorney's Office has a tremendous capacity to make change in the community," he said. "This is an opportunity we couldn't miss. We have credibility and forcefulness as a voice in the community that lots of folks don't have.

"When we weigh in to say we're on your side, it matters," he said.

And you can always count on the Marines:

Whether the end of "don't ask, don't tell" will open recruitment floodgates remains to be seen. As soon as the policy was repealed last month, a top Marine recruiting trainer for the Southwest showed up at the biggest gay community center in Tulsa, Okla., bracing for insults and protests. Instead, he conversed quietly with a trickle of gay women who wandered in to ask about joining the Marines.

At Pasadena City College on Saturday, Wallace was among eight Marines at the recruitment booth. From the morning opening, the Marine contingent proved the biggest draw amid tables representing healthcare organizations, church groups and vendors of rainbow-colored garden decorations. It might have helped that the Marines handed out a lanyard, a pen or a sticker to each man who tried to do a pull-up, or to each woman who tried the flexed-arm hang. To the rare volunteer capable of performing 20 pull-ups went a navy-blue T-shirt.

And there are two gay candidates for mayor of San Diego -- both Republicans.

Update on that DoD DADT/Marriage Thing (Updated)

Any base, anywhere.

Signed Chaplains Memo

And let's just slide around DOMA:

Signed Facilities Memo-1

This may or may not work -- there's the little matter of getting a license, which is going to be hard for two men in, say, Alabama or Florida.

Update:

Well, that didn't take long:

“The Department of Defense has decided to put the White House’s liberal agenda ahead of following the law," Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican from Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, said in a Friday statement, The Hill reports.

"The Defense of Marriage Act makes it clear that for the purposes of the federal government, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," Akin said. "The use of federal property or federal employees to perform gay marriage ceremonies is a clear contravention of the law."

Actually, as usual for Republicans when it comes to actual laws, he's full of it. Performing or hosting a wedding is not against the law. The federal government just will not recognize it as a marriage.

Some DADT Odds and Ends

First, from the rapidly fading Ann Coulter, this, via Joe.My.God (with my reactions in bold):

"Only eight Republicans in the entire U.S. Senate supported eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (There are a lot more than Republicans in the Senate; in fact, the majority are Democrats.) It's safe to assume that no one on the stage supported this sexualization of the military, except maybe one of the nut candidates polling at 3 percent. (Ann's diving into the "if it's gay, it must be about sex" mantra; there are and have been gays serving all along, and somehow no one's having sex in the trenches. Fail on this one. Double fail on this one: no one on that stage wanted to be torn limb from limb.) This is not an anti-gay position; it's a pro-military position. (No, it's an anti-gay position. Coulter has as much experience with military life as Elaine Donnelley.) The basic idea is that sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond. Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine. (It's all about sex, Part II.) A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered." (See The Sacred Band of Thebes).

Either she's an idiot or a liar. I'm voting for liar.

And sure enough, here comes Chris Barron. This is laughable. (Also via JMG):

Ann's position on this clear, and so is GOProud's. We respectfully disagree. We aren't the pod people here at GOProud. Unlike the left and their RINO enablers we don't believe that every person who opposes DADT repeal is anti-gay. Indeed Ann has done more for gay people -- courageously speaking out at CPAC, for example -- then most of the gay organizations here in D.C.

I might point out that aside from repeal of DADT, GOProud's positions are consistently anti-gay. So I guess they don't disagree all that much. And I seem to remember that her "courageously speaking out at CAPC" was pretty insulting to gays.

And a clear lose on establishing an enduring precedent for DADT's unconstitutionality: the 9th Circuit not only dismissed LCR's appeal, but vacated the District Court's ruling in toto. From Lambda Legal:

"We are deeply disappointed that the Ninth Circuit chose to erase the factual findings and legal conclusions reached after years of litigation and a lengthy trial that thousands upon thousands of lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members' constitutional rights were violated for 18 years by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Davidson said. "The end of antigay discrimination by the military was required by the Constitution, not just by political considerations."

"It is wrong to require the more than 14,000 service members who were unconstitutionally discharged to start from square one in obtaining the military benefits they lost, getting their military records corrected, and fighting government efforts to collect educational loans they were prevented from working off, among other harms," he added. "The work to end the damage done by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is far from done and we call on the administration to provide justice to those our country has wronged."

Here's more on that from Aravosis again.

On the other side of the coin, there's this:

After months of legal review, the Department of Defense announced Friday that military chaplains may officiate in same-sex wedding ceremonies of service members in states where gay marriage is legal. Such ceremonies can be performed on military bases, officials wrote in a Friday memorandum.

In connection with repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley wrote in the DoD memo:

"A military chaplain may participate in or officiate any private ceremony, whether on or off a military installation, provided that the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable state and local law. Further, a chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs. Finally, a military chaplain’s participation does not constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by DoD."(A PDF of the memo is available here.)

John Aravosis seems to have the rationale nailed down.

I'm waiting for Ann Coulter's head to explode. Chris Barron's, too.

R.I.P. DADT (Update, Update II)

It's gone. Here's a good summary of the whole thing from Jim Burroway at BTB.

Here's the official statement from the Army.

One thing that Burroway touches on is the FRC's latest scare/fundraising letter. Laurel Ramseyer at Pam's House Blend goes into more detail, but I think she misread it a little bit. Perkins is just claiming to be a powerful voice for religious liberty, which is bullshit -- he doesn't care about religious liberty, at least, not for anyone but himself. I think he's counting on President Perry reinstating an anti-gay policy and is making a pre-emptive strike for credit.

Timothy Beauchamp at AmericaBlog Gay has a well-considered cautionary post.

TIME TO CELEBRATE! Then, we need to prepare for battle with the knowledge our enemies never rest, and will be furiously trying to regain the upper hand. We can not allow that to happen. We must continue marching forward until we achieve FULL EQUALITY in every aspect of American life.

He's right in large measure. Repeal of DADT itself is vulnerable -- the law itself mandates no antidiscrimination policies -- anything along those lines is a matter of regulations -- and we are already seeing discrimination because of DOMA. There have been calls for president Obama to issue an executive order mandating non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which is not going to happen, and even if he does issue such an order, the next president can rescind it with the stroke of a pen. It has to be a matter of law or a constitutional mandate from the courts.

(On the regulations front, here's a list of deletions and changes to regs from the Marines. It's quite lengthy.)

I may come back to this as I run across more articles and commentary, but this will do to start.

Update: Here's a nice story on one of the effects of repeal:

When Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were searching for a place to get married, they settled on a site in Vermont, in part because the state is in the Eastern time zone.

That way, the two men were able to recite their vows before family and friends at the first possible moment after the formal repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Just after midnight Tuesday, the partners of 11 years were married.

"I think it was a beautiful ceremony. The emotions really hit me...but it's finally official," Ross said early Tuesday.

Update II:

I hesitated about including this, but it's worth watching. It's a little long, but you won't notice.

I got all sniffly.

I'm Going to Rain on the Parade

OK -- the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all signed off on DADT repeal. However:

Pentagon officials said they would be looking in the next two months at “gray areas” that might allow them to extend some benefits to same-sex married couples in the military. But under current law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pentagon is prohibited from giving federally financed benefits to those couples.

Those benefits include base housing, health insurance, certain death benefits, legal counseling and access to base commissaries and other stores.

That's just the tip of the iceberg: there is no non-discrimination language included in the repeal bill, and there seems to have been little to no effort to rectify the situation.

This post by Joe Sudbay has a quote from Aubrey Sarvis of SLDN that points this out:

Sarvis warned that the repeal of DADT is just one important milestone along the journey to achieving LGB equality in America’s military, and he renewed the organization’s call for the President to issue an executive order prohibiting discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Such an order would give LGBT service members recourse outside their chain of command if they are experiencing discrimination or harassment.

Here's the full statement from SLDN.

There are enough anti-gay commanders in the military that this is a real issue, and, as much as I hate to say it, I honestly don't believe Obama will make any real effort to rectify it. I just have no confidence that the man is going to finish the job -- it's another half-done deal, and he seems to be perfectly happy with those.

Lots of people are handing out laurels for this, but it's interesting that none of the gay commentators I've read have mentioned Obama. The credit is going instead to SLDN, Servicemembers United, and Log Cabin Republicans, who have been fighting a successful lawsuit against the law. Oh, and Jim Burroway gives due credit to Elaine Donnelley, who has done as much for DADT repeal as Maggie Gallagher has done for marriage equality.

You Have to Wonder, Part ?

The Obama DoJ, true to form, has asked the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the stay on the worldwide injunction against enforcement of DADT. Do you suppose it's going to take the Pentagon another ten months to figure out if they want to appeal?

My take on this is that it's entirely possible that Obama does not want a judicial resolution to DADT. First, he's real big on process, like the other kabuki dancers in Washington. And if there's a definitive finding that DADT is unconstitutional, that means it's a closed book -- Congress cannot reinstate it, nor can it be reinstated by executive order. Want to bet someone doesn't like that kind of limitation on his power?

And I have to wonder what part the Joint Chiefs are playing in this. I'm not really convinced that the officer corps of our military, notorious for its overt Christianism, it really happy with repeal.

Here's a comment from Adam Serwer that brings up a point I had forgotten: Obama promised Congress that the military would be in control of the process. Aside from the essential wrongness of that idea (um, hello? Civilian control of the military? Hello?), it's apparent that Obama is a real process junkie. He's convinced (publicly at least) that legislative repeal is the best option. I'm not so much, but it appears he's committed himself to that.

Well, That's A Good Thing To Hear

From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

After the government appealed U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ decision, the 9th Circuit agreed to keep the policy in place until it could consider the matter. The appeals court reversed itself with Wednesday’s order by lifting its hold on Phillips’ decision.

“The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and (the government) can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay,” the panel said.

I found this sort of amusing:

The Pentagon has been moving carefully to implement the repeal of the ban on openly gay troops.

Hmm -- read that "moving carefully" to mean "with painful slowness."

Any bets on whether the DoD appeals?

It's Stuff Like This

that points up how pointless the Republican Party has become -- they have nothing to offer, they just spend their time trying to muck up whatever someone else (read "that black Kenyan Muslim usurper in the White House") is trying to do:

A group of 23 Republican members of the U.S. House wrote President Obama on Thursday asking him to hold off on certification of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal until Congress can review the Defense Department’s policy changes that would lead to open service.

“Given the necessity for congressional review, which has been limited to this point, we respectfully request that you refrain from transmitting certification until Congress has had sufficient time to review pending legislative matters of policy and law,” the letter states.

"Limited"? Hey, asshole, you voted on the bill that laid out the process. Maybe you don't like the idea, but let me remind you of the favorite right-wing congressional mantra from the Bush years: The Majority Rules.

They had a vote and your side lost. Man up and offer us something that might help fix some real problems.

Hoodathunkit?

The latest high-profile DADT case has a surprising ending:

Derek Morado -- who was faced with discharge even though we were "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was history -- just telephoned GetEQUAL to let them know he won his battle to stay in the military today. . . .

According to Derek, all three members of the hearing board voted to retain him in the military -- an incredible result.

I really didn't expect that.

I'd love to know what was on the appeal panel's minds behind this decision. No statement from them yet, though, and I doubt there will be one.

Mike Huckabee Thinks the Military Should Be In Charge

I can't think of an interpretation of this that makes more sense:

"I would -- because that's really what the military wants," says Huckabee. "There's been some talk that the military is fine with having same-sex orientation people. But if you really surveyed the combat troops, that is not at all the case." According to Huckabee, currently a political analyst for Fox News, politicians should back out of the picture. "...I don't think that these are decisions that politicians should make. These are decisions that soldiers should make," he says emphatically. "And when the soldiers in the foxholes make the decisions, they choose something different -- and we should listen to them."

These are the decisions that politicians are mandated to make, Governor -- it's called civilian control of the military. And how typical of a conservative Republican: the opinions of the 10% of the serving troops that agree with him should overrule everyone else.

Another Republican who hates the American system of government.

(I linked to JMG rather than One News Now because Joe got the sense of the quote correct and I won't link to hate sites.)

Today's Must-Read

Scott Wooledge, one of the White House 13 arrested for chaining themselves to the White House fence, has a must-read post on what's transpiring with the DoJ and the charges against them. Read the whole thing, but one part that interests me hinges on this:

The key sticking point from day one of the plea negotiations has been the prosecution’s unrelenting insistence that we demonstrators must be left with a permanent adult criminal record for taking action.

Of course, we always recognized this as a distinct possibility from the start. But it isn’t actually the case for most acts of civil disobedience. This is especially true for first-time offenders, which I, and most of the demonstrators are.

I can think of one reason for the prosecutors to be insisting on this: Bush stacked Justice with a bunch of Liberty University graduates (the Monica Goodling Syndrome) that Holder hasn't managed to get rid of, and they're running loose. We know that that horrible DOMA brief was written by one of them, and it doesn't seem that the administration has wised up.

I'm also convinced that Obama sees us as one of the pawns that can be sacrificed to get something else. It's not working very well, but I don't feel I can accuse him of being a realist.

The reaction of the judge, I think, supports my Liberty University hypothesis: there's a huge First Amendment issue here, and they just don't get it:

Also, the more serious Federal statute that the US Attorney has elected to charge us with, “failure to obey a lawful order,” our attorneys contend has not been used before to discipline participants in a free speech demonstration.

The application of this Federal statute to our case seemed to strike Judge Facciola as both unusual and disproportionate to the infraction, as well. He seemed to entertain Goldstone’s argument it could be a troubling indication of an abusive measure taken to punish civil rights demonstrators. Judge Facciola himself, unprompted, offered a comparison  Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, a landmark unanimous Supreme Court decision of the Civil Rights Era. Fred Shuttlesworth was involved in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and an ally of Dr. Martin Luther King’s. In 1963, he was arrested for conducting a civil rights march in Alabama without obtaining a proper parade permit. He was convicted under a local Birmingham statute.

The Court reversed Shuttlesworth’s conviction because the circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, but to censor ideas.

We took Judge Facciola’s spontaneous citation of Shuttlesworth as an encouraging sign that he is cognizant and respectful of how seemingly benign statutes can be applied in a capricious, even malicious manner, to squash the free speech rights of disenfranchised and oppressed minorities.

The judge can't do anything about what charges are brought, except to ask the prosecution to reconsider, which he has done. But if the defense brings up the First Amendment issue, DoJ is dead in the water -- this is an obvious attempt to censor ideas.

It'll be interesting to watch this one play out.

There's a commenter who keeps harping on the "be nice and just talk to people" idea as a way of condemning GetEqual for its confrontational tactics, which seems to be a widespread reaction among gay bloggers, which I don't understand at all. As I pointed out in one of my own comments, no civil rights movement has ever made any progress in this country without making a lot of noise. We're not going to get anywhere by just talking to people -- that's what you do with friends, family, neighbors, co-workers. For politicians, you have to yell, because the professional homophobes are making a lot of noise and we have to counter that. There's also the fact that gay civil rights are not on most people's radar, and we have to get their attention before talking is going to do any good. We've seen from the sterling record of HRC and its ilk what just talking does -- you get played for a patsy.

I'm not anyone's patsy.

Good Faith

Yeah, right. And you thought DADT was history?

To hear Navy Petty Officer Stephen C. Jones tell it, what happened in his bedroom one night last month was purely innocuous: Another male sailor came by to watch "The Vampire Diaries," and they both dozed off in the same bed.

"That is the honest, entire story," Jones said.

Navy officials, however, have a different view of his bedroom behavior at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, near Charleston, S.C. Even though there is no evidence the 21-year-old sailor took part in any hanky-panky or that his friend was not permitted to visit, Jones has been charged with dereliction of duty. The Navy is seeking to discharge him, a move that he is contesting.

"The subterfuge is, they believe this kid is a homosexual, but they have no proof of it," said Gary Myers, Jones's civilian attorney. "So what they've done here is to trump this thing up as a crime. This is not a crime."

This is so patently an attempt to railroad someone for being "gay" -- even when he's probably not. And it's blatant defiance of the Commander in Chief.

Did someone actually believe civilians were still running the military?