When I would vote for a Republican president

There is a problem with the modern Republican party, I've talked about it a lot and firmly believe it. The current politics of the Republican Party do not represent the conservative values espoused by their own rhetoric. We see it most clearly in the campaigns for national office among the varied districts around the country: Conservative Christian social values issues trump economic and domestic policy issues. When the races get close or competitive, Republicans fall back on those old wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and separation of church and state.

Now, just to get this out of the way, the separation of church and state is fact, it is irrefutable by any thinking rational person and has repeated precedent over centuries of law. There is no turning away from that even with a neo-con dominated high court. The values of freedom of religion is so fundamental to this nation, it was one of the primary reason for immigration to this country in the first place. All those people who deny outright the separation of church and state or insist that it isn't what the founders intended are either deluded to the point of lunacy or they are playing so far to the right that they may as well be playing to a fascist party. Yet, in a crazy election year like this, we see it among far too many candidates.

As for those others, they are part of the rhetorical 'Guns, God and Gays' routine that Karl Rove designed as the presidential and national Republican strategy for the 2004 election. Notice, however, that the election in 2006, possibly a part reaction to that election, saw a sweeping wave of Democratic candidates elected into office. It is also a device that played strongly to the Christian elements of the Republican platform by bringing evoking their fears of a secular nation that turns away from faith and even persecutes those of faith, the supposedly warring sides of what Bill O'Reilly terms the 'culture wars'. Those advocating this kind of conflict then become the 'culture warriors'.

The hypocrisy then becomes the parallel messages of 'freedom and liberty' used by conservative candidates matched with socially conservative message of restricting rights for all minority people. It is the blending of the message of an overreaching government infringing upon the private lives of citizens while espousing the exact same infringement the conservative movement is against, only against the groups they purposefully exclude from full citizen-hood. As long as groups agree with their ideological stance, they are represented by the conservative message, those who disagree are deemed un-American and enemies of freedom.

What that message effectively does is pit those people who have strong Christian faiths, notice they are never reaching out to other people of even similar faiths such as the Jewish community, while at the same time purposely courting the 'white vote' by excluding minority people of conservative Christian faiths, i.e. African Americans and Latino people. Those groups, from a conservative faith perspective, should be sympathetic to the Christian Republican cause on many social issues, yet they largely and historically voted Democrat. What about that rationale makes sense ultimately boils down to the 'white vote' and institutionalized racism. They hate being called racist and fight against that name, but when they campaign on the principles of exclusion in part by using what Rachel Maddow identifies as the 'Southern Strategy' employed during the 1960's and inciting fears of white people, there really can't be any other name for it.

Ultimately the effect of this strategy and this type of rhetoric is the denial of full citizen-hood to many minority groups. They play on the fears of less educated and less affluent white people, particularly in South and the Western United States, fears of becoming the minority in this country, of preferential treatment to racial and ethnic minorities to the detriment of the rights of white people, and to the enforcement of 'socialist' values such as 'wealth redistribution'. It is the same rhetoric that would have denied African Americans the right to vote and enforced segregation in schools and public places. It is the same rhetoric that on a non-superficial level enforced the idea that somehow people of darker skin were less-human and less deserving of the rights enjoyed by a white majority.

But the messages of the conservative white Christian political movement are not ultimately compatible with the message of 'freedom and liberty'. What it is conducive to is the politics of exclusion, of the continued institutionalization of 'freedoms and liberties' for white people, a principle which can't be construed as anything but outright racism and homophobia. It is also a message that numerous 'liberal' or 'moderate' Republicans are against. While many of these Republicans are conservative on fiscal issues, they are at least moderate on social issues. They are also often Republicans from historically Union states. By Union, I am referring to the label of the northern states during the Civil War. Yes, it is ludicrous, but the rift between these two cultural ideals goes further back even than that. Many people from the South are proud of their Confederate roots, roots they see as upholding the principles of freedom and states' rights. They see themselves as representing an oppressed group rebelling against a tyrannical federal government, romanticizing the culture of that time, and ignoring the rampant hostility toward and racist treatment of African American people. It is a sentiment that still supports outright and institutionalized racism in parts of this country and it is a belief system many conservative political candidates court while running for office.

Given the current political climate, and particularly the recent issues that the LGBT community is having with President Obama, although it is extremely unlikely, if there was a Republican candidate who was even moderate on social issues, I would have to strongly consider whether or not to vote for them. I, of course, voted for Obama in 2008. Unlike many of the progressive young people who voted based on the idea that he would radically change the way that Washington operates, my family has been involved with politics for a long time, I knew that the fundamental machinations are almost impossible to change. I said to people at that time and continue to believe that the most important thing that has happened with President Obama was that we finally had a president who moved the rhetoric and policies of this country out of the realm of the conservative Christian movement and back to the mainstream. We finally had a president who was openly supportive of the rights of LGBT people and still is a very vocal advocate for the recognition of our civil rights. Unfortunately parts of his record, especially of late, do not match his words. And given the almost certain climate of Washington in the near future, which is going to gain more conservatives in Congress, it will be almost impossible for him and the progressive base to have any movement forward through legislation, it is going to have to be through the courts. Unless the Senate is able to sway some of the moderate Republicans after the elections are over, and especially after the military study is finished, to end the filibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill with the provision on Don't Ask, Don't Tell included, Obama's appeal of the current case overturning the decision will end any possible repeal of that policy in the near future. If a Republican wins the White House in 2012, it will almost certainly be another decade before that policy is repealed. How, then, can we support a president, however vocal he is about his support for the LGBT community, when in the hour of critical success for our rights, he decides to turn his back on the best chance for that policy to end.

I don't want to vote Republican ever. I disagree with so many principles of their agenda. It is also likely that it will be dangerous for the progress of this country to vote for the candidate who receives the nomination in 2012. It will, however, be a hard decision if a socially moderate candidate is put forward and the economic plan of the progressives in Washington are not successful. Lowering taxes is clearly not the answer, which was evident during the first six years of the Bush presidency when the Republicans controlled Congress and he instituted huge tax breaks that ultimately only stimulated an even further (upward) redistribution of wealth toward the super rich. If the future president is able to institute some of the public works projects, projects that were enormously successful in the past and are proven ways of getting much of the labor industries back to work, than it might be worth it to see a change from a president who overall has, in an attempt to make genuine bipartisan policy decisions, shown a disheartening lack of leadership. As Rachel Maddow has said, it became obvious early on that the Republicans were going to prove a huge roadblock toward every major piece of legislation introduced on behalf of the president, so why didn't he go all out and just go for the full on progressive agenda like a public option in the health care act? It may be time to find a new candidate.

Thoughts about the Second Amendment and it's 'Remedies'

The title, obviously, refers to the famous quote by Sharon Angles, a candidate who I hope won't win her campaign to take Harry Reid's seat in the US Senate. She proudly sides herself with the right on the right to bear arms. This brings into play the conservative movement dream wedge issue, one of several they dip into whenever they have tough elections ahead, and that is the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

One of the things that is disturbing about the rhetoric that Angles uses, which allies her with the explicit language used by militia and anti-government paramilitary groups around the country, is the idea that one of the principle reasons for us to be able to own and use weapons as private citizens is to overthrow a 'tyrannical' government. Of course this endears her to the radical fringe that has been a primary source of energy for the Tea Party, but it also brings to the mainstream the perspective of those people who agree with that premise and illustrates exactly how fringe their overall political views are.

As with all the articles and amendments in the US Constitution, the Second Amendment has received review and interpretation by the courts and especially by the Supreme Court. The high court has dealt with a number of aspects of this issue regarding regulation and detailing legal uses of guns. It also has had a handful of landmark cases which set important precedents in the way we interpret constitutional rights as a whole.

I think it is interesting, however, to think about the understanding of warfare and the vision of a civil society that the founders had when designing the Constitution. I think that it is important for us to recognize our necessary participation in shaping our democracy, in determining those who would represent us and in providing a balance through our votes against those who would radically alter our society to all our detriment.

It is important to consider the vision of those founders when we are in a post-nuclear age. A professor of mine in college described the change in the literature and art of the late-Victorian to early modernist periods at the end of the 19th and early 20th century as arising out of the effect industrialization had on the world. In particular, the effect that the horrors of 'modern' warfare had on a whole generation of young people during WWI. That war was famous for millions of miles of trenches, and the development of trench warfare, which would often create 'killing fields' between trench positions where enemy forces could be held in stand still for months.

This modern war also saw mass production of machines that had been developing as weapons during the previous decades and their use across the theater of war. These machines put horrifying and inhuman faces on a world changing far more quickly than people could have imagined. That inhumanity of war-machines and weaponry only continued to develop so that by the time of the Pacific campaigns of WWII, we had developed weapons with the potential to kill millions with a single bomb.

There are also some very important differences between the facts around gun ownership now as then. For one, the standards of weaponry were such that a single-shot rifle was high-tech. Also, at least during the Revolutionary War and sometimes afterward, members of the military were usually required to provide their own arms. Neither of these things are true anymore. We no longer use single-shot guns, and the process of reloading the gun is quick. And while there are weapons that are legal only for members of law enforcement or for those in active military service, the technology of the arms available to the civilian population is remarkable.

That, more than anything, is what gives me problems with the idea of the right to bear arms. Why would someone, for the purposes of home protection or for hunting, need any kind of automatic weapon? If the right to bear arms was intended for and still is of a purpose to provide personal protection, how does an Uzi accomplish that anymore than a simple handgun? Considering the potential for 'accidents', which often means children finding a parent's gun and setting it off, doesn't the state have a vested interest in providing some standards of regulation? If the argument is that a responsible gun owner would teach their children not to handle the weapon or to handle the weapon safely, isn't teaching them how to use the weapon inviting them to use it? One could argue that point all they want but it is a commonly true generality that if you forbid a child something they will want it or do it.

People always seem to want 'freedom', or at least lack of government involvement, until something goes wrong and then they want to know why the government didn't step in. They don't want the government regulating their right to gun ownership, but then when their children are killed by gunfire, especially in the frighteningly frequent episodes of children bringing guns to school and opening fire, or when the same thing happens with adults in the workplace, there is always an outcry for why the shooter was allowed access to a gun.

The most famous school example is of course Columbine, the high school in Colorado where two disturbed teenagers held hostage and killed numerous classmates before killing themselves. There are obviously many other issues revolving around the two youths choosing to take such action, but ultimately the mantra that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people,' is little comfort for the families of the teens killed that day. The fact is that if those two hadn't had access to guns they wouldn't have been able to shoot up the school. Psychological and social issues aside, which of course played a role but were far more complex in trying to address, the simplest and most expedient solution would have been taking away their guns.

So, as a society, we've tried to argue back and forth between what we feel is right and what we feel are our rights. Do we allow private citizens to own weapons that a could be considered military-grade? If we do that, how do we decide what weapons are appropriate for military and law enforcement use but not for civilian use? And then how do we convince people who think that's a decision they should make for themselves that it is actually for all of us to decide? If we are going to argue about whether society should approve of same-sex marriage or on issues of immigration, why can't we insist that we as a society gets to decide on whether or not everyone should have access to automatic firearms?

I was watching tonight/s episode of The Rachel Maddow Show and she stopped by a prominent gun shop in Las Vegas, trying out several automatic weapons. For some the main argument for having automatic weapons is for the purposes of sportsmanship. If a hunter needs to be able to spray multiple rounds a second at an animal, they are a terrible hunter and should be doing target practice and not hunting with an Uzi. And it is a problem, to me, when I see what is basically a quasi-paramilitary culture being promoted or proliferating through gun culture. Are they enthusiasts because they romanticize the idea of owning a gun and being a soldier when for whatever reason they did not enter service themselves?

To me it is simple. If you are a hunter, there are weapons that are appropriate, even with advanced technology, for sportsmanship/hunting purposes. They do not include automatic assault rifles. My family owns hunting rifles, I know people who hunt, and there is nothing wrong with a gun with an easier reload or less jerk back or a better scope or site or with the ability to shoot several rounds in a quick succession. That's not the same as hunting with an Uzi.

I also don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of guns among law enforcement and military personnel. They are trained, and their behavior and psychological situations under some scrutiny so that we have few renegade cops, though the Army's recent standards seems to have led to an increase in number of disturbed people entering service or with criminal assaults and murders among service members. But either way, they are trained and understand the idea of appropriate and inappropriate use of weapons.

Weapons are for killing, pure and simple. While there may be design elements to them that are appealing, I find swords, knives and historical weaponry to be very interesting, and while there is some collectible or aesthetic value to antique firearms, even these were designed for the purpose of harming others and can be of some danger. If we treat weapons with a cavalier attitude, especially if someone with children treat them with such, than we pass that cavalier attitude on to others and help to foster this concept that somehow it is 'safe' to use them. Weapons are never safe, maybe they are safe for the user as they don't backfire, but they are never 'safe'.

Returning to Angles and the idea of 'Second Amendment remedies', it is clear she's talking about violent overthrow of the government, or acts of domestic terrorism like taking out legitimately elected officials. This is a danger to our democracy and is the kind of sponsorship of civil strife you see among many of the nations we consider 'Third World'. That is one reason why the woman and why the conservative Tea Party members are so dangerous.

In a time when anxiety is so high and people are suffering across the country, they scapegoat groups like Latino people and the issue of illegal immigration, or they scapegoat LGBT people and the issue of same-sex marriage, then paint all people who sympathize or are even rational about those groups and issues as 'enemies', using rhetorical devices to identify them as illegitimate like 'socialist' or 'communist', and then describe solutions involving violence, they are fueling the fires of domestic terrorism and civil unrest. They are encouraging those among them who send toxic substances to Congressmen, try to cause an explosion by cutting the gas line at the home of another Congressman's family member, and go armed to political rallies held by the president. All of this has been documented as happening this year.

For the rest of us, who are legitimately upset about the political process, who are afraid of our personal financial situations and those of friends and family, and who see the rhetoric of this election cycle as one more step to total anarchy, it is frightening. Most Americans do not feel the extreme anger of those lashing out with violence. While we sympathize with the sentiments, the vast majority of us choose to exercise our rights through voting, through protest and free speech. We know that if we get worked up that we can yell and shout about the issues important to us. We do not, however, believe in the kind of physical violence that extremists in this country want to promote as normal, rational, understandable, excusable and mainstream.

Our founders fought against a true tyrant, the kind of tyrant that very few in this country could really recognize. They were given no representation and were being drained of revenue by a foreign power that took direct military action to enforce its policies. Those who identify Obama with this type of dictator belittle the efforts of our founders. They also belittle the lives of so many in nations that still suffer under true dictators today, who have no freedom of speech or religion, who cannot gather in protest, and who are not allowed to oppose the government's policies in any way. These people should go and try to live in one of these many other countries to see how bad it really gets. They should suffer under dictators who would imprison, torture or even kill them for their opinions. Then they would have a legitimate understanding of what it means to be an American.

Young, Gay, Married...Well Optomistic At Least

I ran across this article on Facebook which was posted by The Good Men Project, entitled Young, Gay and Still Married. The article revisits several couples in Massachusetts who had gotten married, or were planning on getting married. That state is one of only a handful around the country that allow full marriage to same-sex couples, those states being Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C. I'll talk more about that later in this post.

I wanted to write about this because I was in Massachusetts during the political firestorm surrounding the recognition of same-sex unions and I think it had a profound effect on some parts of my outlook on life. The first thing I want to say is that in spite of all the rhetoric surrounding the 'activist judges' and all that, those judges agreed to stay their Sept. 2003 ruling until May of 2004 to give the Congress a chance to deal with it legislatively. Their decision was based on the Massachusetts constitution, which they were proud to state was the oldest constitution in the United States, having predated that of our nation. The fact that there was a stay on that ruling was a clear indicator that those judges were willing to be reasonable and allow there to be a legislative process to go forward, allowing the lawful representatives of voters to work out the issue. A constitutional convention was convened and a period of political maneuvering, campaigning and strong-arming created a pressurized situation especially around the Boston metro that grew painful the closer we got to the deadline set by their Supreme Court and the end of the stay of the decision.

Immediately after that stay ended, couples lined up at city halls all over the state, and especially in Cambridge and Boston, to get their marriage licenses. While most of those couples were, and still are, older couples, many middle aged or older, there was some presence of young people from the very beginning. Many good articles were written at that time about the effects of the recognition of marriage on the gay community and on LGBT people individually. One of the best, however, discussed its effect on young people, including interviews with young people who lived in and around Boston. That article in particular had a profound affect on me and forced me to rethink a lot of things. Aside from more specifically personal issues, it made me reexamine what I thought about the institution of marriage in general. I was pretty pessimistic about marriage before that, understandably so in light of the rate of divorce and the oft-ignored topic of monogamy and fidelity among married people. As there were already civil unions available in certain cities and in the state of Vermont, I had taken a position that marriage as an institution and a concept was at its core a means of social control that had been passed down from prehistory. I still believe that, and actually know it when you look at the logic behind that argument. It doesn't, however, mean that there isn't value to it on the societal level as well as the personal level.

Almost instantly after the stay of the ruling ended, when I watched the first couples entering the Cambridge City Hall on television, I was numbed by the fact that same-sex marriage had become reality, that those opposed to it hadn't succeeded in yet another attempt to deny us rights, and that as it had overcome its last legal hurdle would probably be there to stay. Soon after it hit me that I in fact could marry, that all those ideas I'd had about marriage weren't important to me as they'd been in part fueled by resentment in the knowledge that I would most likely never be able to be in a legally recognized marriage. With the publication of that article on same-sex marriage and its effect on the youth of our community, I was shocked by how things quickly changed in my head. Some of the things that were so striking to me were particular anecdotes about how young people were now discussing marriage and thinking about it as something that they might be interested in. They were shifting their thoughts about relationships and the purpose of dating toward something more akin to how my heterosexual friends thought about it, that at some point dating becomes not-casual and that relationships that aren't on their way toward marriage had a sell-by date. A close friend of mine actually had a time frame he'd set for himself in terms of determining whether a relationship would end in marriage or whether it wouldn't and if it wouldn't than he'd break it off. To him, the purpose of dating is to find a partner you can eventually commit to and build a life with. For him that meant eventually committing to each other through marriage.

Most powerful of all, though, was a comment that was made in the article about something that might on the surface seem trivial but for which most older people and many young people in less tolerant parts of the country might recognize the importance of. That something was that now a young gay person might have a conversation with a parent about how to pick out a ring. My mind expanded on that into conversations heterosexual people may have with their parents about marriage and what it's like and advice they may have. For someone who never expected to be allowed to get married, and whose parents at that time were still very uncomfortable and sometimes hostile to the topic of his sexuality, the idea that some young gay person could sit down and have those kinds of conversations with parents who loved them, wanted them to be happy, and who could be a little less worried about what struggles their child might have to go through, that was powerful.

I'm not in a place in my life right now where I am looking to settle down and part of that is that I do not have a partner who I would want to settle down with. What changed for me, though, was that I realized at that time that I could do so if I wanted to. I didn't have to wait or expect to wait until I was middle aged before I found someone to settle down with. I didn't have to look for people, who were usually older, who were in that place where they'd want to make some kind of 'rest of your life' commitment. I could in fact marry someone my own age, at that time I was in my early-mid twenties, and I could look forward to spending thirty, forty, or fifty years with that person rather than going from one 'long-term' relationship to another, none lasting more than a handful of years at a time. For many of us that was reality, that those friends of ours who were more equipped psychologically to find partners and be in relationships, almost none of those relationships lasted longer than a few years, maybe a decade if they were lucky. Even now divorce or breakups between gay couples somewhat mirror straight couples.

It is really difficult, maybe impossible, to explain to heterosexual people the psychological impact of what gaining the ability to marry meant to us. As it is there are far too many people who talk about the sanctity of marriage and how it is fundamental to the structure of our society, many of whom have a rank cavalier attitudes about their own marriage and have had multiple divorces, such as Rush Limbaugh. Marriage, however, implies a level of commitment that civil unions never will. Marriage implies an inviolable commitment and bond that on a purely emotional level provides security and faith in one's partner. It relieves anxieties about the future of a relationship and anxieties over how society, and especially essential services such as hospital care, views your relationship. Young people can look forward to having that security. We can all have a bit more hope for the futures of our relationships and of our own personal security in society because there is legal recognition of our civil contract, that hospitals should treat us as spouses and we should be allowed to make decisions on our partner's behalf, as well as visitation rights and all of that.

For those of us who are older and grew up with the stigma and cloud of anxiety and doubt and fear those things are powerful. It is maybe even more powerful that there are young people at least in some places that are growing up with fewer and fewer of those anxieties to begin with. They can have more hope, and because of all of this they can find partners with whom it is easier to have stable and healthy relationships. They can look for partners with an expectation of eventually wanting to settle down and marry thereby changing the criteria used in their evaluation process. They can insist on the quality of relationships that lead to healthier and happier lives. None of us is guaranteed these things or precluded from them because of our age and where we live, but in a state like Massachusetts where we aren't just tolerated, but actually embraced, more and more teens are growing up without having internalized those prejudiced.

Today I read about another gay youth, this one a man in his mid-twenties, who committed suicide. He was an activist who went to one of the high school programs in New York City specifically designed to provide safe spaces for LGBT youth, and lived in one of the boroughs. This young person is the latest in a series of well publicized suicides among gay youth, some just in their early teens, at a time when LGBT people and the issues we face are getting huge exposure. These teens aren't the only ones who are committing suicide, they are also not even the only gay youth who are committing suicide, however they are the ones getting coverage and bringing this dark social disease that has been plaguing our community probably since prehistory, to light and to the national stage. It is so important that young people have hope and that they are presented with a world full of possibilities so they can overcome the many things which make adolescence so difficult in general but for LGBT youth especially. One way for that to happen is for the laws of this country to change to recognize and accommodate the rights of gay people, such as repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Another and maybe more important way is for the laws preventing same-sex marriage to be struck down and for them to see that no matter who they want to be, whatever life they aspire to have, and whatever they dream of doing, that they those options are available to them. If they don't dream of getting married and having a family, that is not a problem. However, for those who want that, or even for those who feel the absence of that right as a judgment of value on who they are or on their status as an outsider in our society, they need to see these laws changed. They need to have those legal forms of discrimination repealed so that they have time to lose some of those internalized feelings of self-loathing and hatred that often lead to suicide. In this way, same-sex marriage and its legal status becomes for many an issue of survival.

Now there are states that recognize gay marriage already, and I've listed those above but I'll list their abbreviations here: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, VT. Countries that recognize full marriage equality, and this is interesting as it is important to note those with a historically overwhelming majority of Catholics: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Gay marriages are also recognized and performed in Mexico City, although as far as I know not throughout the rest of that country. Also, it is important to recognize states that do not perform gay marriages but that do recognize them, and those are MD, NY and RI. The issue of same-sex marriage in CA is up in the air right now and has become a lynch-pin in the entire debate.

States that perform Civil Unions in the United States are: CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NV, OR, WA, WI. Other nations with some form of Civil Union or Civil Partnerships are: Andorra (a tiny nation tucked between Spain and France), Austria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay. The state of Colorado also has some legislation dealing with domestic partnership that does provide some protection for same-sex partners, in spite of it not being marriage or civil unions.

It is important to note, too, that there are cities and counties around the country that provide domestic partnership registries and offer recognition and legal protections within the city for those registered as domestic partners. Among them are: Lacy, Olympia, Seattle and Tumwater, Washington, in Oregon the city of Ashland, Eugene and Multnomah County, in California many cities recognize domestic partnerships including all the big ones you'd expect such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, Berkeley, Nevada also provides domestic partnerships, as does Salt Lake City, as do both Boulder and Denver, Colorado, and Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. In Minnesota, my home state, the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, and Rochester all provide domestic partnerships. Iowa City, IA provides the partnerships though the state provides same-sex marriage. Lawrence, Kansas and the cities of Columbia, Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri provide domestic partnerships as well.

The list goes on and on, and in particular most metropolitan areas, which one would expect to have a visible LGBT community, have domestic partner registries of some kind. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page providing information on all of this information, including lists and a map of areas of the country with these laws.

Now there are

The Paradox of Conservative Populism and Class Warfare

Since the great debates and struggles in Congress to pass health care reform there has been a very vocal and visible conservative opposition to not just health care reform but the entire progressive agenda. The group that galvanized this so effectively was the Tea Party, with their Colonial garb and tea bags and angry slogans. They voiced their opinions by gathering in Washington and using signs that denounced President Obama as a totalitarian dictator, a fascist, a Nazi, a tyrant and a foreigner. They invited the leadership of people like Sarah Palin, who was more than happy to turn her notoriety as a political nobody prior to the 2008 election and her quirky average American-ness into a potent force. Because of the anger and general ignorance of the members of the Tea Party, the message they formed around, protesting taxation and overreach of government, has been subtly and sometimes overtly overtaken and changed to suit the Republican leadership who seized control.

Amidst all the rhetoric about government involvement in the private lives of citizens and their general anger at the lack of representation for their political views by Congress and the White House, there have been many instances of outright contradiction and hypocrisy that is either conveniently ignored or aggressively denied. First is the assertion that the majority of Americans are sympathetic to the message of the Tea Party, namely political revolution against a perceived class of political elites. Second, and this is something that Sarah Palin has always used in her rhetoric, that somehow 'common sense' solutions will stimulate the necessary recovery of our economy, and that if we got the 'elites' out of Washington and put some people with 'common sense' and 'traditional values' into the role of government, then everything would be okay. And third, and this is central to the identification of the 'elites' versus the average/normal American, is the demoniaation of educated people, hence the other part of that title of those dastardly 'educated-elites'.

The rhetorical device of 'educated elites' and class warfare isn't unique to Palin's speeches, and isn't even really unique to this election cycle. Class warfare has been around for as long as there have been struggles to form government and the distinction between economic and political classes. Sometimes this type of political manipulation is done with race, by fusing race, ethnic background and economic status together to form generic profiles of a people on whom to place the blame for the political and economic woes of a given time period. This happened in Germany with the Jews, often a target of adding race to class warfare in Europe. It's happened to the Irish, to the Polish, to the Russians, and often, as we saw in the states of the former Yugoslavia, this has often come to violence and civil war.

One of the key objects of concern that is listed off by those talking about their concerns about the economy and their own financial future is how to send their kids to college, how to educate their children, how to leave their children with a more optimistic future. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric when one of the goals, it seems, is to vilify education and those who are educated as being 'out of touch' or somehow diminishing the legitimacy of their policies and legislative efforts while at the same time recognizing the importance of education. Education does more than just give people earning potential, it improves the intellectual capacity and knowledge level of individuals. Education expands an individuals ability to understand the world around them, to be able to think deeper than the vague, provocative slogans some use to try to shape the minds of this country. Even among people who have advanced educations there are political issues so complex that they take years to understand. Our economy is one of those issues.

Unbenounced, perhaps, to people in the Tea Party, this is not the economy of the eighteenth century. The protests at that time were more than just about taxation, but illegal search and seizure, and the lack of due process. When people like Joe Miller argue for legislating strictly by what's written in the original framework and the Constitution, he purposefully ignores the fact that at that time there were no voting rights for women or recognition of citizenship for African Americans. Beyond that, there were, at that time, nothing like the multi-national corporations of today. Even the holding and trading companies of the British Empire at that time pale in comparison to the predatory and consciousless policies of the modern corporation.

Candidates like Christine O'Donnell use explicit class warfare to explain the discrepancies in her education background. She claims she did not get her degree right away because she 'didn't have a trust fund' to pay for school and because she had to pay her student loans back before they'd give her her diploma. Anyone who has gone to college knows how ridiculous that claim is. But by setting up the distinction between her and her opponent, who was Harvard educated and holds advanced degrees, she plays to the element of people who are willing to outright deny the serious allegations of campaign fraud and contradictory statements about political positions and experience level. Even the famous commercial where she denies being a witch, she says 'I'm you.' That effort at populism plays successfully among those who have little understanding of our political system or even care about issues other than acting out on their rage against the political process.

When Sarah Palin plays to the 'average American' element within the Tea Party, she's trying to legitimize her own candidacy for president. She's trying to paint a picture of a government filled with sneering elitists from Boston who went to Harvard, advancing the party message of anger against the government for a variety of reasons that all revolve around their party losing. They're dissatisfied because they didn't want Obama to win, they don't want this country to move forward with a progressive agenda that they feel infringes on their lives by stealing their money and giving it to poor minority people. Surveys of the Tea Party found that the vast majority of them were middle class and middle aged or older. They also were largely educated people, at least with college degrees.

So what about having an advanced education disqualifies you from governing? What about it indicates that you would govern badly? We live in a representative government for a reason, our system was set up for a reason. Even back at the founding of our nation there were geographic and cultural differences that required a diverse representative body. While there is no required level of education in our country, in any other career path there is a meritocracy that favors those with advanced educations. Politicians surround themselves with staffers with advanced education. Even though there is a stereotype of educated people being elitist, is that any more true than stereotypes of black people being uneducated or Jewish people being cheap?

The fact is that when someone like Sarah Palin seeks to legitimize her own possible campaign for the presidency, she does everyone in this country a disservice. Not only does she create an atmosphere that discourages the youth in a segment of society from seeking educations but she also brings that rhetoric to the mainstream through her media exposure. The honest truth is that there are no 'common sense' solutions to our economic troubles. There is no easy answer to how to deal with financial regulations and manage energy policy in a way that promotes private sector job growth. This is not the kitchen table or the household budget for a family in Alaska, this is a matter of dealing with innumerable variables with effects both nationally and locally.

We should want people who are educated and capable in office and running this country. It's not just a matter of having someone who you agree with ideologically. It is also a matter of having someone who doesn't need basic civics lessons to understand the responsibilities of the offices in the Executive Branch, who has a proven ability to manage sensitive and difficult situations like natural disasters and economic crises. Whoever is president should be able to communicate economic policy or discuss issues facing the nation either legislatively or judicially with a sense of command and expertise, providing Americans with the appearance of being a confident leader, if not actually truly being a confident leader. Someone who wasn't just sure of their religious or conservative social positions, but someone who seeks to truly represent all people and not just a small slice of the far-right political fringe.

This isn't Alaska, this isn't the household budget of a Midwestern family, this is a varied and diverse nation with just as diverse of an economy and position in the international community. Anyone who can't proceed with confidence and authority, armed with knowledge and understanding, should not be taken seriously as a candidate. Someone who can't name even important heads of state, who doesn't have even a cursory understanding of other cultures and who can't inspire the confidence of foreign leaders and the potential investors from other nations, should not be seen as anything more than a media side-show.

A Few Thoughts About The HRC

There was an editorial in Lavender Magazine in one of its recent issues about the national LGBT advocacy group the HRC, or the Human Rights Campaign. It is important to note that the writer doesn't want to negate or belittle the efforts of the HRC and its role in providing a visible face and voice for the LGBT community to Congress and the White House. At the same time as recognizing that is also recognizing that there are some limitations inherent in the current functions of the HRC that affect its efficacy in activism outside Washington.

Primary among its limitations is the fact that its headquarters is in Washington and most of its activities and energy is focused there. This is vitally important when dealing with policy on the national stage. It doesn't, however, meet the needs of elections and policy in other parts of the US. While some areas, such as the Twin Cities in Minnesota get attention from the HRC and while they do make an effort to bring awareness to our issues during election season, Minneapolis and St. Paul already have a visible gay community and wide recognition of our needs and our positions on legislation.

This is true for many large cities across the country. What is not effective in this course of action is addressing the often more critical issues in smaller cities and rural areas. Many of these areas of the country, which compose most of the geographical area of the country and sometimes represent the majority of a state's population, are conservative and very often vote Republican in elections. They are also areas that have little to know visible gay community or recognition and sympathy for policies effecting our communities, and can also be places with the least understanding of who we are and thus places where public officials use the most offensive rhetoric.

Take, for example, Zach Harrington of Norman, OK, one of the latest youths to take their life because of the bullying and culture of the environment in which they live. He was bullied and often feared for his safety. After attending a town council meeting in which the public officials openly used hateful rhetoric about LGBT people, Zach took his own life. Now, according to Wikipedia, Norman isn't even that small of a city, over 115,000 people. It is also the home of the University of Oklahoma, which has 30,000+ students. The fact that the city council of a community that size would allow openly homophobic rhetoric is worrisome. It is especially worrisome as it is home to such a large University, which would suggest a diverse student population if nothing else.

But what about the many communities smaller than Norman. What about the Oak Point, TX or Whitewater, WI? Even relatively larger cities like Bartlett, TN or Bismark, ND? While statistically the LGBT population, including the number of young people who are LGBT, may be higher in metropolitan areas than any single smaller city like Norman, Odessa or Bismark, The vast majority of settlements in the United States are in the population range of those smaller cities, or even smaller towns. Statistically, as that is about the only reliable indicator we can use to estimate, a town with a population of 437 would have a population falling within the LGBT orientation of about 6 to 10%, or roughly 26-43 people. A city of 115,000 would, with a guesstimate of 6%, have 6,900 people of the LGBT orientation, and in the case of a city like Norman probably significantly higher given the presence of a major university.

So, what does the HRC do for these areas? They encourage and promote the idea of grassroots efforts, of local activism, but do they have local HRC chapters that they fund and who concentrate their efforts on local issues? While they have chapters in cities across the country, and those chapters work to raise money through gala benefits and at Pride festivals, at least from my experience that is all they do in MN. The money they raise ends up mostly funneling back to Washington, with the local chapter being mostly if not totally comprised of volunteers. Even when they do take action on the state level, there is no recognition of issues affecting individual cities.

Perhaps they don't have the capacity to take such a broad role in American politics. That is understandable. But recognizing that should push them to use some of those funds raised across the country to organize training sessions for grassroots organizations or community leaders looking to form those organizations. They should fly people out to hold a rally once or twice a year or train activists in effective strategies to lobby politicians. They should be sending letters and testimonials to town councils and school boards to try and educate those groups in the problems that face LGBT youth and adults in smaller communities. They should help to fund ad campaigns that can reach youth struggling with their identity further into rural areas.

Even if they collect the information from local activists, i.e. their own state and local chapters, it would make such a difference on election day if they had some list or review of political candidates supportive of LGBT rights and who may have voting records proving their support or their denial of support to the gay community. Official chapters of HRC even have their own pages linked back to the groups national organization website that could be used to host information on these local elections and where local chapters can inform people of policies going on in their area.

Bottom line is that the HRC has the ability to help local activists organize and to train them in effective ways to make their voices heard both in the public and in lobbying politicians directly. By reaching out through their chapters across the country they can help change occur in areas where there are serious legal threats to the rights of LGBT people. As our rights are beginning to move forward on the national stage, I hope that we can begin to increase awareness and movement on the local level and thus have a greater effect on the evolution of our American culture.

The Tea Party, The Constitution, Freedom and Liberty

The Tea Party from the very beginning has been outspoken about their interpretations of the Constitution, about the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and about the limits and powers granted to the government. They have all along insisted that what they stand for are the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to them and that they believe the government is infringing upon. One of the constant parts of the rhetoric espoused by Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Party celebrities are those freedoms and government infringement and how all citizens have the responsibility to demand that they don't suffer under government infringement by making their voices heard and by voting.

I've already written about how social conservatives and the activists among politicians who created the Christian Coalition and the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress have co-opted the Tea Party. It is such a blaringly obvious hypocrisy that the Tea Party candidates continue to run on slogans invoking liberty, the vision of the founding fathers, and rights guaranteed by the Constitution while at the same time denying and fighting against the rights of many minority and marginalized groups in our country. They preach about freedom of thought and expression and especially about freedom of religion, yet they are some of the most vocal in championing the Islamophobia exhibited in the discussion of the mosque near Ground Zero. They constantly use the phrase 'it's time to take our country back', explicitly state that Obama is foreign and Muslim and deny his legitimacy as a democratically elected official, and describe his administration and the Democratic majorities in Congress as totalitarian and socialist.

We who believe in progressive values of inclusiveness and honesty must acknowledge and tolerate the hateful, bigoted and outright lying rhetoric of those on the political right who advocate and are leaders in the Tea Party. At the same time we do not have to agree with them nor do we have to like what they say. Not only is there mutual agreement between the visible members of the Tea Party with socially conservative groups on issues of abortion and gay rights, but they are funded by far-right fringe elements of the political right and actively support and promote candidates with radically un-American views and dangerous positions and rhetoric.

One example is how they say they're for smaller government, which to them is linked in part to high taxes and the IRS, as though the IRS is the villain because they collect and process taxes. But...they also are instrumental in processing Medicare and Social Security. Both of those programs are socialist programs. Both of them are central benefits that the Tea Party, according to polls, supports and refuses to give up. Still, they support candidates who quietly, and some openly, advocate for abolishing those 'entitlement programs' and privatizing them. That fundamental divorce from reality is of course central to their interpretation of the Constitution and constitutional rights as civil rights. They also support candidates like Sharon Angles who has advocated for abolishing the Department of Education. Well, the Dept of Education is principle in issuing and handling student loans, the student loans that most college students depend on. Christine O'Donnell advocates for local control over curriculum and education. The reason she advocates for that is so that parents can have a chance to enforce their religious beliefs into school curriculum and somehow circumvent the First Amendment.

Keith Olbermann said it best, I think, when he characterized the Tea Party as the 'Something For Nothing' party. They want to cut all taxes but they want the benefits that the government uses those taxes to pay for. They want food to be safe to eat, they want their prescription drugs to be safe and paid for, they want bridges built, emergency services such as police and fire departments to be responsive and well funded. They want hospitals, many of whom benefit from large subsidies from the government either through direct aid in grants or through the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid that offset the costs of the poor they are ethically obligated to treat no matter what. They want all these things yet they want the government to cut the administrative structures critical to funding and supporting and managing these agencies.

They want all the rights guaranteed to all citizens, especially the rights to free speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, yet they only apply them to themselves, somehow limiting the concept of freedom and liberty for all or 'all men are created equal' simply to people who share their skin color and religious or political ideology. To all others they view constitutionally guaranteed rights, civil rights, as 'special rights', and groups that work to guarantee that laws aren't enacted which infringe on those rights, whether they are minority caucuses working to register black and Latino voters or groups working for LGBT rights, as 'special interest groups' advocating for changing the fundamental fabric and vision of what America was meant to be.

Either the Tea Party is truly for freedom, liberty and justice for all citizens of the United States, as well as treating those who are not citizens with compassion and respect, or they are hypocrites and liars whose selfish and bigoted motivations are simply to ensure that they are able to legally discriminate without punishment. Either they believe in the fundamental tenants of the Constitution and the democratic process, or they a group seeking to enforce their religious and political ideology on the rest of the country through political control. Either they are people who truly understand the process and purpose of a democracy or they are a group of angry voters who are willing to ignore all facts and scientific reality by supporting far right fringe candidates whose policies are bad for our society in order to express their outrage that they lost and at the candidates whose political positions they disagree with.

They are not in anyway mainstream, they don't represent the majority opinion in America, they don't represent the intentions or vision of the founders of this country, and they don't really believe in the concepts of freedom and justice.

Obama as Commander in Chief and DADT

According to a Newsweek article that sources a bunch of different military and constitutional scholars, Obama in fact does have options in at least putting a freeze on enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Not only is there precedent in the courts but Congress has explicitly given him greater freedom in how to enforce laws regarding the military and shaping regulations that pertain to those laws. There are a number of justifications for not enforcing the law and aside form an executive order, as the head of the military he could simply instruct the military to stop enforcing the law.

Reasons discussed went as follows:

1) He could declare that he believed it to be unconstitutional. When the law was first put in place in 1993 there was no legal precedent for recognizing the rights of gay people. That changed, though, when the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy of people in gay relationships in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy law in that state, effectively ending sodomy laws across the country. This decision then also set a standard that unless the state can prove that it had a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of LGBT people, laws infringing on those rights were unconstitutional.

2) Congress and the courts often defer to presidential authority under Article 1 of the Constitution. While the matter of his seemingly ignoring laws passed by Congress could go to the courts, the case would have to be argued on behalf of military officers and or members of Congress. But Article 1 gives the president a lot of leeway.

3) There are already laws in place that the President either does not enforce or enforces lightly, in particular when it comes to deciding on what laws to prosecute and in seeking sentences.

4) In 1984 Congress gave the president 'Stop-Loss' authority that allows him to put a halt to discharges in the face of troupe shortages. In the current climate, it is a widely regarded fact that there has been difficulty in recruiting service members. Recruitment has been so difficult, in fact, that they have been allowing convicted felons and high school dropouts to join, been lowering standards of physical fitness and been giving wavers to soldiers caught and convicted of crimes during active duty.

5) He could have decided from the beginning not to defend the law. This would have set up a situation where the decision didn't override legislative or executive power. Like Governor Schwarzenegger did in California on the case against Prop 8, he could have allowed other groups, including Republicans in Congress, to step in and try to defend the law in court, if the court allowed it. Doing this would not only have provided him political cover among his base, but also would have allowed him to not act in direct conflict with stated policy.

The President, while making firm statements in his belief that the policy is wrong and is even detrimental to our national security, has yet to say whether he believes it is unconstitutional. From the beginning he could have instructed the Justice Dept. to argue the case from a point of already believing the law is unconstitutional. To the contrary, however, my understanding is that they've been aggressive in defense of the law.

While some people may think rail against 'judicial activism', the same kind of activism that held up voter's rights in FL during the 2000 election and thereby giving the hypocritical George W. Bush the win, as I've stated before that is the job of the federal court system, or one of them at least. It is always funny to me how people, almost always people on the political right, argue about judicial activism only when their side loses. People on the political left have done so rarely and most recently in what I believe to be a truly horrific decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision that recognized corporations as legal entities with a right to free speech. By doing this they've allowed unprecedented amounts of money to flood the campaigns during this election cycle.

In terms of the President enforcing DADT or not enforcing it, it is a terrible contradiction for him to hold a position that he clearly is not willing to act upon when he does have options, at least while the courts are deciding on the issue. His Justice Dept is seeking a stay on the injunction, arguing it before the judge who created the injunction and now issuing a request for an emergency stay on the injunction to the Court of Appeals. Whether it is likely or not that Court of Appeals would go through with putting a stay on the decision seems to be a mystery to most. What is believed, however, is that if the issue goes to the Supreme Court, because of the political atmosphere on the court it is likely that they would issue a stay, at least while the case itself is going through.

What the Judge reasoned, however, when denying the request for a stay is that the government failed to prove that the injunction would in fact harm readiness and troupe cohesion as they've argued all along. They failed to prove their case, and if the Appellate Court agrees, there really may be too weak of a case. Also, I would think that by now, considering the study ordered by the President and Secretary of Defense was supposed to have begun in July and been done by Dec 1st, which is only about six weeks away, they must have at least some data already that would give a preliminary indication about the effect of DADT. If they don't or if they are reticent not to give away the surprise before the study is complete, I suppose they seem happy to have a weak case. If, however, the preliminary findings of the ongoing study lean toward it being less of a problem than argued by the political right, than they should suffer the consequences of going against even the evidence they already have.

The bottom line is that when the President says he doesn't have the authority to end the law by executive order, he is correct. When he says that, though, and lets it imply that he has no options or recourse other than to wait until Congress repeals the law, he is deliberately dodging the issue and dodging his responsibilities as a leader. He has stated his position on the policy. He has authority to take action that would at least temporarily halt enforcement of the policy he's against. He has a responsibility to the citizens of the United States and especially to those serving in the military to exercise the leadership we had hoped he would exhibit when we elected him into office.

The Progressive Left....And Right

The Democratic Party doesn't hold a monopoly on 'liberal' or 'progressive' ideals. The fact is that there are Dems who are in fact just as not-progressive as most Republicans. This is illustrated by the fact that there are plenty of men and women in Congress who either have direct ties to corporate and industrial interests like the oil companies and investment banks and hedge funds. It is also as problematic as the far right taking ownership of words like 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'patriot'.

At its heart 'progressive' thinking isn't the property of one party or the other, or any independent party masquerading as a legitimately independent group. We see this often when staunch and loyal Republicans who are not running for office speak out in support of civil rights, most noticeably now in the debate about LGBT rights. My favorite example of late is Meghan McCain. Here is the daughter of a Senator and former presidential candidate, an educated young woman who has experienced the best and worst parts of being on the campaign trail and participating in the most competitive national election in the election cycle. She often writes about how the GOP, by embracing candidates who aren't just Christian but extreme far-right Christians, and by using rhetoric of exclusion are setting themselves up for becoming obsolete and irrelevant.

That is part of the nature of our current political climate, though. Everyone has drawn their battle lines and claimed their labels and titles. And no it isn't fair for us to play the 'us' and 'them' game. But the truth is that there are people who are progressive thinkers, people who see that the only way forward is by leaving behind older technologies, older economic ideas, older political policies and adapt to the technologies and shifting geopolitical issues of our modern world. Progressive thinkers aren't necessarily behind green energy solutions because they are environmental activists, they're behind green energy because they recognize irrefutable proof that global climate change is already affecting our lives and will grow a bigger threat in the future. They support green energy because they recognize that as most industrialized countries either have already or will become prime markets for environmentally responsible technologies. They support it because they already see the nations who regularly rank higher than the US in quality of life and see the advanced public transportation, the clean energy solutions, the responsible consumerism and no lessening of the strength of the economy because of it.

Progressive thinkers recognize that some issues are apolitical and shouldn't have to impede our debate about economic and foreign policies. They have read the Bill of Rights and Constitution, were raised with the understanding that 'all men are created equal' and 'inalienable rights' should actually apply to all people, and with a spirit of empowerment. Perhaps it is just liberal idealism, but progressives, no matter their religious or cultural beliefs, recognize that every person deserves the same rights afforded to their peers. They recognize that just because a topic makes them personally uncomfortable does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of another. These principles then don't conflict with their personal religious beliefs nor their fiscal policies.

Younger generations seem to have more progressive thinkers, although we know from the cultural shifts of the 1960's and 70's that progressiveness was tied to youth then too, but also see that those progressive thinkers don't always remain progressive thinkers. This is an important part of the discussion, too. Should politicians not be thinking toward the future? Should they be acting as the parent who think they are right and want to impose the correct decisions and values onto younger generations on into the future? Or should they recognize that ideas and values evolve and that they should be making policy that is either adaptable as well or that reflects the direction our culture is going? Perhaps if more politicians were progressive thinkers they would have already have made some progress in recognizing and fighting cyber-bullying among young people, or cyber-terrorism on the national security front.

In a time of economic struggle like we have today it is difficult to recognize the commonalities between culturally progressive people. We are too busy drawing our battle lines in a two-party system and primarily because of the stark economic policy differences. It is just a shame, though, that regressive thinkers, all those people who clearly have forgotten the disastrous consequences of Reganomics and the recession of the 1980's, or even worse, those people who somehow romanticize pre-WWII America, have become the most visible and vociferous members of the GOP.

In a time when more and more young people have friends or loved ones who are gay people, when they've had more interaction with people of other cultures and races, the GOP isn't just in danger of becoming obsolete. If the Tea Party is any indication, the GOP of the pre-1990's with its social moderates has already become obsolete. They've abdicated their political authority first to the Christian Coalition during the 90's in an attempt further solidify political power, and now as the Christian conservatives have taken control of the Tea Party and the separatist/militia movement/libertarian/angry white people brand of politics, the true Republicans no longer hold the reigns of their own party.

More on Obama and the ruling and injunction on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

There are some necessary thoughts about the effects of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Rachel Maddow on her show on MSNBC, which it shouldn't be a surprise that I love, interviewed two service members, both decorated Air Force fighter pilots who have served tours in central combat zones. Both men were kept in shadow and their identities were protected. The first of the two interviewees has a partner and laid out one of the most essential problems with the policy. Because he is gay and is forced to remain in the closet, his relationship with his partner must remain absolutely secret. That means the partner has no official relationship status with the service member.

One of the consequences of this lack of status is that the partner of a service member on active duty would not be notified if their partner was killed in action. The reverse is also true, should anything happen to the non-military partner, unless a family member or close friend was able to inform them, which is not always the case if they are in a heavy combat area, that military person wouldn't know if they're partner died. If they were recognized by the military, the administrative arm of the military would make sure that this notification happened either surviving partner.

Also, according to the interviewee, a service member can be sent home to be at the bedside of their spouse. Because of DADT, when his partner was in the hospital because of medical complications and his heart stopped and had to be resuscitated, he not only couldn't be there by the partner's side but wasn't even able to be informed of the situation. As a result he didn't find out until later how critical the health scare was. Because he's not out to his family or any but a few very close friends he couldn't obtain that information indirectly either. In the interview he said that he'd written a letter for a friend of his to give to his partner in the case of something happening to him during active service, and that that would be the only way his partner would be notified.

Estimates as to the number of gay men and lesbians in active military service probably vary widely, but a statistic I thought looked good from the methodology of those studying the issue came up with about 11,000 lesbians, 14,500 gay men. I've heard estimates that are three times that number.

Whatever the actual number of service members are gay or lesbian, it is inconceivable that anyone who truly respected the service of troupes and the needs of military service members would not recognize the incredible burden they are placing on these people by not repealing DADT. It is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the right-wing of politics that they have taken control of discourse around the meaning of freedom and liberty and what it means to be a patriotic American, yet they largely oppose open-service. You cannot be both. Either you are a patriot who loves our country and the freedoms that are at the foundation of our society, that you respect and are devoted to the welfare and well-being of all our service members, or you oppose the fundamental right of people in the service to healthfully and respectful acknowledge and embrace their essential identity and be unafraid of reprisals because of that openness.

It is a fact that Obama could issue an executive order that would put a moratorium on the execution of DADT. It is nearly a fact that there is no chance of the repeal of DADT actually passing as a part of legislation in the Senate, especially with the inevitable results of the 2010 mid-terms. Let me repeat that to be perfectly clear, there is almost NO chance for the repeal of DADT to pass in the Senate. If that doesn't happen, there is absolutely no way for Obama to oversee it's outright repeal. Even with a moratorium via executive order, that would only stay in effect until the next president decides to lift it, thereby reinstating the policy.

Right now, barring an act of honesty and integrity on the part of the Republican minority in the Senate, the only way for DADT to be repealed is through the courts and the only way for it to happen under Obama's current term is for him to instruct his Justice Department to not appeal the ruling from "Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States" and the subsequent injunction. If he is honestly serious about seeing the policy end, which he states over and over again, this is his last real option. If he is honest in claiming that he is an ally of the LGBT community, this is his chance to prove it.

President Obama and the Gay Left

Something pretty incredible happened recently. After two important rulings regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US military first declared that the policy violates constitutional rights of service members and people considering entering military service but that in at least the instance of a specific flight nurse the policy actually hindered readiness and morale. The primary reason given by those opposed to repeal is that allowing gay and lesbians hurts readiness, morale and group cohesion. Recently, the judge who declared the constitutional issue via a ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans issued a worldwide injunction basically saying that anyone and everyone involved with the military administration and chain of command must immediately halt any and all procedures involving implementing DADT.

Now, those on the progressive side of politics, progressive Republicans as well as Democrats, have seen the faces of service members who were discharged, some of whom have honorable and highly lauded careers as well as specialized skills such as being Arab linguists. As most US citizens support the repeal, and as the military struggles in many areas of recruiting and retaining qualified and talented service members, it becomes apolitical to support the cause of repeal.

And then there's the position of the President. From the beginning of his campaigning for the support of the LGBT political left Obama has made repeal of DADT his clinch issue. Many other issues important to progress of gay rights do not really have national platforms or attention right now, nothing like the attention on DADT. Because of that, it was an extremely important to securing the kind of financial support and political action from groups like the HRC.

From what I understand, as Commander in Chief, the president had the power to immediately halt the investigative process in the discharging of gay service members. While it wouldn't outright repeal the policy, it would have kept hundreds of qualified and awarded members of the military from being removed from service. As of now, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has given instructions to the military to halt enforcement of a key part of DADT, which is the involuntary outing, so basically the witch hunts and the investigations prompted by rumors from other service members of a service member's sexuality. One of the reasons he did this was to prompt a more 'humane' approach to enforcing the policy and was done around the time that they commissioned the study on the most effective way to implement repealing the policy. The president could have done that more than a year earlier.

It is important to note, and this is something that conservative Republicans, and those who repeatedly used anti-gay rhetorical reasoning in their committees, so not necessarily outright derogatory remarks but rather lines of reasoning based on base stereotypes and horrible prejudices, is that it is only a matter of time before it is repealed. Nearly all the military leadership recognizes and wants this to be repealed. The President and the Secretary of Defense are committed to repealing it, one way or another. The majority of citizens think it makes no sense and support repealing it and allowing open service. Thus, it's only a matter of time, so while they argue against repealing it, that's not the issue cause it's going to be repealed. The issue, in terms of their filibusters and nay votes, has been when they would implement the procedural activities involving repeal, not whether it would happen at all.

So the problem now for the President is that he's got not only two court cases, landmark cases, that justify repeal and rule against the policy's constitutionality, but that there is now a legal injunction in place preventing any implementation. Does he have the Department of Justice, which was the group acting as the plaintifs in both cases and basically arguing for the constitutionality of the policy, appeal the ruling on the Log Cabin Republican's case and the subsequent injunction? They have already started the appeal process for a recent ruling in Massachusetts that overturned DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act put into place after gay marriage was allowed in Hawaii, a situation that has since been changed through voter memorandum. The argument about DOMA was made around the distribution of federal benefits by the state to married same-sex partners and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that any legal contracts recognized in one state, be they private or business contracts or whatever, must be recognized by all other states. DOMA specifically defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman, and rejects any same-sex marital status from a given state in terms of federal pension and social security benefits and everything else on the federal level. It also said that any state can decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is and choose to not recognize marriages from other states. They will appeal that ruling.

In light of the Justice Departments decision to appeal the DOMA ruling, and in light of the fact that the White House has taken a soft position on the repeal of DADT as wanting it to be done by Congress, it is not certain whether they will then appeal this ruling as well. These are important cases and would be hugely influential on all civil rights laws, just as those regarding African Americans were in past decades, if they reach the Supreme Court. As there is, right now, a balance that slightly favors the liberal end of the Court, it would be a good time for these cases to go before them. The problem for Obama and for the gay community is, if Obama has them appeal the DADT ruling as they are doing with DOMA, they will be not only acting against their position on repeal but in fact will be standing against the progress of LGBT civil rights.

There are arguably three cardinal issues in struggle for LGBT civil rights. The first is same-sex marriage, which is probably the most divisive issue nationwide. Eventually, no matter how much the religious conservatives in this country speak out against it, gay marriage will be a reality. All conclusive evidence in terms of polling and studies done about election turnouts indicate that the country is growing more and more supportive with younger generations, and sorry to say this but eventually those who think they are on the correct side of the issue by opposing it are going to die off. Most likely they'll die off soon as most of those who oppose it are older. The second cardinal issue is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is the one that has been most pressing in the past two or three years and the one that Obama took the most decisive progressive position on. The third and possibly fourth issues are same-sex adoption and then policies in schools dealing with the harassment of LGBT youth.

Obama has now made a serious misstep in terms of a progressive, pro-civil rights position, on one of these cardinal issues in having the Justice Department appeal the DOMA ruling. That particular ruling is pretty solid and has legal precedence behind it in the overturning of laws prohibiting interracial marriages. If that goes to the Supreme Court, however, no matter what the outcome the repercussions across the country will be significant. Ruling in favor of striking down DOMA would be a move towards considering the issue of the legislation and amendments to state constitutions, which cannot violate the federal constitution. The DADT ruling, however, and particularly the injunction are on much shakier ground as they are unique, they do not have the backing of precedent and while the constitutional issue may be upheld by the Court, the injunction could be challenged on multiple fronts, including the separation of powers clause.

President Obama has not taken decisive action in repealing DADT. Instead he has issued strong positions while implementing soft actions, failed to put the necessary pressure on Congress to proceed in a way that was conducive to passing repeal, and now may or may not appeal the most conclusive and decisive action taken on the policy, this time by the federal courts, thereby either directly compromising his position on repeal or, if choosing not to appeal, taking no action at all as another branch of the government altogether takes the hard action. Either way there has been a profound failure of decisive leadership. If promises and policy positions are to mean anything, a leader needs to take strong, clear action on them. If he pledges his support to a policy position and promises to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goals of that position, it means nothing if he doesn't take action to achieve those goals. By stating publicly, both in meetings with LGBT lobby groups like the HRC and in the State of the Union Address that he was going to make sure it was repealed, he must make good on his promise. He hasn't done so, though. Instead he has abdicated that function to the courts while providing just enough political action to give himself cover if the issue is brought up by progressives in his own reelection campaign.

Mr. Obama promised to be a fierce ally and advocate for the civil rights of LGBT people. He has said multiple times that he is committed to the repeal of DADT and not done nearly as much as he can in order to ensure repeal. Can the LGBT community then really claim that Obama is our ally? John McCain, during his election campaign, also took a pro-repeal position. He might have been the principle senator in filibustering the repeal legislation but if he had won the presidency, who's to say he wouldn't have worked toward repeal. When it comes time to start drawing battle-lines for the 2012 presidential campaign, when Obama begins soliciting campaign contributions and looking to excite the progressive base who were instrumental in his initial election, will the LGBT community show up in similar numbers? Will we give in similar amounts or act with similar force as we did in 2008? If the major policy issues the President can affect are decided through the courts and there isn't much left for him to do, then the question will be should we support him as we did. In a year when there may possibly be a Sarah Palin nomination for the Republican candidate, we may have no choice. However, when we have such immediate issues as the recent gay teen suicides to deal with and organizations that can benefit those youth directly with our contributions, wouldn't our money be better spent there rather than on a candidate who proved himself to be at best a useless ally?