Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell – Don’t Live Your Life

March 14, 2010 at 6:45 am 81 comments

by Brian Leubitz

I think we all can agree that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell needs to go. And a strong majority of Americans think the law needs to go. We’ve written about these poll numbers before, but it’s worth repeating for some background before I go forward:

Nearly six in 10, 57%, said gays should be able to serve openly in the armed forces, while 36% said they should not. An even greater margin, 66%-41%, said the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is discrimination. However, by 54%-38%, respondents said gays in the military should face restrictions on exhibiting their sexuality. (Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, offers his take on the poll results in a Capital Journal column.) (Wall Street Journal)

So, these are strong numbers of Americans who think it needs to go. That there are some people who think it is discrimination but shouldn’t be changed is extremely troubling, but shouldn’t change the underlying message to Congress: End DADT Now!

Supporters of DADT (are there really any?) say that it doesn’t ban gay people, just their being open about their sexuality. But clearly, it stops LGBT service members from living their lives. The service members are just supposed to not tell anybody about it at work and generally live as deep in the closet as possible. It’s not a winning plan for mental health.

Yet, typically, you don’t see other authorities going out of their way to out LGBT service members to military authorities. But that is what happened in Rapid City, South Dakota:

The 28-year-old’s honorable discharge under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

[Jene] Newsome and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the western South Dakota police department, claiming the officers violated her privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation. The case also highlights concerns over the ability of third parties to “out” service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. (AP)

The department defends their actions, saying that they “spotted the marriage license in the window.” When Newsome refused to come back and assist them in finding her spouse who was facing theft charges, they decided that they would tell the military. This is an outrageous violation of privacy that a straight couple would never had to deal with.

But this incident also emphasizes how the picture of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law by the media, and by the name of the policy itself, doesn’t truly do the policy justice. While the technical name given by President Clinton was “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue,” that third commandment has never really been followed. Anyway, it should be “Don’t Live Your Life” instead.

When you read the law enacted by congress, you see just how pernicious this beast really is. It specifically bans homosexual sex, bans same-sex marriages, and generally being a gay person. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is simply a ban on gay servicemembers, there’s no other way around it.

I highly recommend that you read through the whole law. The fact that this law was passed by the Congress of the United States (and signed by President Clinton!) is outrageous. It is offensive in the extreme. The finding of facts are a series of rationalizations for discrimination, and the law in general treats being gay as immoral.

This policy should have never been enshrined in the law of the United States of America, and it needs to be repealed post haste. It’s time for the President to quit talking about wanting to end DADT and start vigorously pushing Congress to pass Sen Lieberman’s DADT repeal bill.

Entry filed under: Right-wing. Tags: , .

Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom NOM Returns to California

81 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Richard W. Fitch  |  March 14, 2010 at 7:04 am

    With the precedent of Lawrence v Texas and the anticipated outcome of Perry(Prop 8), both DADT(DP) and DOMA should be declared a violation of civil rights and the Constitution.

    Reply
  • 2. Chris  |  March 14, 2010 at 7:09 am

    The response from my sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
    “The Department of Defense has testified before Congress that the current policy has served the military well. I oppose changing the policy at this time.”
    Wow, politicians lie.

    http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=221

    Reply
    • 3. Jorge  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:26 am

      Yeah, my senator too unfortunately. Glad she lost the governor’s race, hope it’ll only reflect what’ll happen for her in senate (i know, unlikely).

      Reply
    • 4. Alan E.  |  March 14, 2010 at 12:57 pm

      If you can tell me just how it has served the military well, then I might believe you. Bundling up presuppositions and bigotry into blanket statements do not sway at least most of the public. Unfortunately, there is a loud minority that is easily swayed by such statements.

      Reply
    • 5. Rightthingtodo TX  |  March 15, 2010 at 7:51 am

      Yeah…I got the same canned response from KBH and JC when I sent them emails. Whaddya expect? It’s Texas. Looks like Gov Goodhair is going to win again so what can you do ‘cept move to Austin and live in the glowing light of the blue dot!

      Reply
  • 6. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Force them into the GROUND!!!!!! to repeal DADT….which inconsequently stands do….”Do Ask….Do Tell”…..(is that the right use of that word?)……<3….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 7. JQ  |  March 14, 2010 at 8:02 am

    REMINDER!

    If you haven’t called yet, do so:

    http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/OneQuickCall

    Reply
    • 8. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 8:09 am

      I did….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
  • 9. Billy  |  March 14, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Wow, the police actually reported that woman’s marriage license to the Air Force? How is this not blatant discrimination? Would they have reported a straight service member’s certificate? Of course not. Because that would have been “normal” to them, but since she wasn’t cooperating on a totally unrelated manner, they thought they had to get even somehow.

    I think this speaks volumes to the state-of-mind concerning bigotry and homophobia, that anyone with authority will abuse that authority (and justify it by whatever means necessary) if they can do so to bring harm to GLBT Americans.

    Reply
    • 10. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:44 am

      They also violated her constitutional rights by trying to force her to act against her spouse. Aren’t all married couples protected from that? Oh, that’s right, I forgot. That only applies to “heterosexual” “marriages”.

      Reply
      • 11. Kathleen  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:52 am

        In order to refuse to take action against her spouse, it would require “telling” that she was married to her. That undoubtedly would have run afoul of DADT. Total Catch 22. Just another of the horrible dilemmas created by this outrageous policy.

        Reply
      • 12. Alan E.  |  March 14, 2010 at 1:00 pm

        Following up on the Catch-22, is that a given right based on a state’s recognition of a marriage, or is that only given to federally recognized marriages? To expand, which rights are intrinsically given based on state recognition, and which are based on federal recognition?

        Reply
      • 13. Eric  |  March 14, 2010 at 4:32 pm

        I also wondered about the protection against testifying against spouses, but am not sure if that applies to not helping the investigation?

        Anyway, from what I hear, this isn’t quite as egregious as it sounds. “Through the window” I agree is quite a stretch, but once the license is part of the police investigation, I don;t think they can withhold it from the military — it’s part of the case file which I think the police need to share when investigating military personnel

        Reply
      • 14. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm

        But why is the license apart of the police investigation. That’s why they were there……It has nothing to do with whatever she did……<3….Ronnie

        Reply
      • 15. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm

        that was suppose to say that’s not why the police were there….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 16. Wolfinlv  |  March 15, 2010 at 10:20 am

        The license is a part of the investigation if the person in the military is saying “no I don’t know her” it proves relationship. Also if the person is saying yes she lives here but I don’t know where she is. Most heterosexual spouses are thought to know where their spouse are or their routines. And if she is considered to be “aiding and abetting” a criminal and obstructing and ongoing investigation they have to notify the military of the possibility of her violation of the law and what they are investigating. Yeah it’s a stretch but I can see both sides. If you want the right of marriage you need to assume all the responsibilities and consequences of it. If you are in the military under the current policy having any document that proves you are gay is a liability. Also just getting a license you have to admit to a government entity that you are gay and therefore have broken the DADT policy.

        Reply
      • 17. Kathleen  |  March 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm

        Wolfinlv said “Also just getting a license you have to admit to a government entity that you are gay and therefore have broken the DADT policy.”

        Absolutely right. In fact, the law spells out that it is a violation if “the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex”

        Reply
  • 18. Alan McCornick  |  March 14, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Thank you for drawing attention to the pernicious impact of a law which expressly requires people to live in shame. We are expected to accept it was a necessary evil, even a step forward. It was and is a law based on two nasty assumptions – “you’re no damn good and we have the right to make you behave accordingly.”

    Reply
  • 19. Kathleen  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:02 am

    I thought they were supposed to immediately stop expelling people when the information came from third-party reporting?

    Reply
    • 20. fiona64  |  March 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

      Yep. That is exactly what was supposed to happen.

      Love,
      Fiona (who watched one good soldier be thrown out under DADT and another remain closeted until after his honorable discharge for fear of same)

      Reply
  • 21. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:05 am

    And I thought that they were not supposed to ask…..I guess they don’t follow that policy either…..I’m just saying…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 22. Waxr  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:08 am

    The ban on gays and lesbians in the military came at the insistence of Great Britain after the US entrance into World War II. The British insisted that homosexuals were security risks because they were subject to blackmail.

    Enforcement of the ban during the war was spotty, and some gays and lesbians in critical positions were able to serve openly.

    However, after the war the military began a strict enforcement of the ban. Despite a smaller number of men in uniform, more men were discharged from the military for homosexual activities then than were discharged during the war.

    The experience in Korea and Viet Nam confirms the fact that there are more discharges for homosexual conduct in peace time, than in wartime.

    The United States is currently involved in two wars which have only limited public support. Military enlistments are down. Therefore, several military leaders are suggesting that we do away with DADT.

    All we have to do is wait for the military to conduct their year long study. But by then, there is a good chance that we will be out of the current wars and there will be no need to drop DADT. Congress should do it now.

    Reply
    • 23. Bob  |  March 14, 2010 at 12:23 pm

      but the U.K. has since gotten beyond that discrimination, one of the most famous gays in their military was Turin, broke Hitlers code that hid their subs, literally bringing an end to the war read the apology here Gordon Browns apology.www.number10.gov.uk

      Reply
      • 24. Bob  |  March 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm

        sorry about no link, you have to type it in, or google Alan Turing, I also got his name wrong, it’s an amazing story

        Reply
      • 25. Kathleen  |  March 14, 2010 at 12:33 pm

        This might be the link you wanted:
        http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571

        Reply
      • 26. Alan E.  |  March 14, 2010 at 1:02 pm

        They have even officially apologized for chemically castrating Turin, too. I think it’s too little, too late, but it’s more than nothing.

        Reply
      • 27. Waxr  |  March 14, 2010 at 1:56 pm

        As an old mathematician, I recognize Alan Turing’s contributions in that field. His contributions to the development of computers should also not be overlooked.

        His apparent suicide in 1954 was only two years after he was forced to accept chemical castration because he was gay. He was only 42 years old at the time.

        Reply
  • 28. CeeVee  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Not sure of the specifics, but it is my understanding that the law is officially titled, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, DON’T HARASS. Funny how parts of that law are enforced. If only the Don’t Pursue AND Don’t Harass were equally enforced, then heterosexual service members might be less inclined to throw around derogatory remarks to their gay co-workers. It might also make the environment for women in the military healthier. Unwelcome sexual advances from male co-workers wouldn’t lead to threats and stirring up rumors of the woman being gay. The whole thing reeks.

    Reply
  • 29. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:42 am

    This also points up another fact of DADT–namely, that most of he servicemembers who have been fired from their military careers under DADT are lesbians. This is not only discrimination based on sexual orentation, this is descrimination based on gender. And this is two wrongs at the same time. And we all know that two wrongs NEVER make a right. It is WAY PAST TIME to repeal DADT, and we all need to get behind the push to repeal it.

    Reply
  • 30. Ed-M  |  March 14, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    How is this any different than Uganda’s ‘kill the gays’ bill in its definition “homosexuality” and “attempted homosexuality?” I don’t see any difference whatsoever.

    The only difference between the two is in the degree of inhumane treatment of LGBT people. DADT needs to be REVOKED.

    Reply
    • 31. dieter  |  March 14, 2010 at 7:54 pm

      This happened where I live in Sacramento:
      A gay man was killed by a russin guy and his friends,
      Scott lively (anti gay person partly responsible for the kill the gays bill in Uganda) is speaking about the incident to the Russian community here in sacramento. when he describes how the russian guy attacks the gay guy..the entire crowd LAUGHS. when he says that the gay guy died..they laughed even harder.

      THIS is happening in Sacra-fricken-mento!!!

      and somehow yet he manages to BLAME the gay guy for his own death.

      Reply
      • 32. Lora  |  March 15, 2010 at 8:52 am

        I live in Sacto. too and remember when this happened. Sickening, but not surprising…it’s Sacramento!
        For being the capitol of California, this is one of the most redneck towns I know.

        Reply
      • 33. Straight Grandmother  |  March 15, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        Dieter, What you are choosing to ignore is that a man (it doesn’t matter if he was gay or staight IMHO) was in a public park and pulled down his pants with children present. I can see how an adult would confront the man. I do not see this as a hate crime. Americans do not want to see fornicating in public parks either straight or gay, much less in groups, with children present.

        To me it is an accident, not intentional homocide, he was drunk he fell down after being pumched *becasue of his behaviour,* and hit his head and died. The dead man (agiain does not matter straight or gay) was the provocater. We don’t want our kids to see that!

        What you do in the privacy of your own home is not my business but, gay or straight, don’t bring explicit sexaul activity into a public park, with- our without- children present, but especially horrible with children there. I mean come ON, have some desency man.

        Reply
      • 34. dieter  |  March 15, 2010 at 2:49 pm

        wow I have never been more insulted.
        First you assume the russian attacker was telling the truth. of course he would not say he punched the guy just because he was gay..every single gay bashing event has been described by the attacker as the fault of the victim. EVERY single one!
        you ASSUMED the ATTACKER was being truthful about the lewd act. You assumed alot about the facts of which you know very little…and you automatically jumped to the conclusion that the attacker was justified in physically attacking another human being. he could have called the police. IF IT WERE TRUE TO BEGIN WITH>
        You make no mention of the fact that the ENTIRE russian community LAUGHED when it was said the man died….they LAUGHED!!!!
        and you are justifying the attackers actions. do not ever respond to me again…and I hopew I never meet one of YOUR grandkids on the street. I would hate to have them get killed by me. of course I could always just say..I didnt like what they were doing, and you should be just fine with that.
        Ugh. You make me sick.
        what a disgusting truth about yourself you just showed.

        now excuse me..It’s time for me to go down to the corner park and KILL every straight couple going at it in the park!! I mean WE don’t want to see that shit after all…
        and apparently seing something icky is justification for murder.

        True colors comes to mind.
        Do not respond I will not read any more filth from you.

        Reply
      • 35. Lora  |  March 15, 2010 at 11:04 pm

        dieter…if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t this 4th of July a couple years ago?? And wasn’t it on the little island in the middle of the river?? If that’s the case, I don’t believe there were children present. Another thing I’ve never heard is that the guy pulled down his pants….sounds like some embellishment to me!
        Of course, this is coming from a group of people who fled their country because they were being persecuted and oppressed….so they come to our country to persecute and oppress us!!

        Reply
      • 36. dieter  |  March 15, 2010 at 11:58 pm

        Lora..you are correct. there were no children present. that is what pisses me off about what so called straight grandma said. she out and out justified a man dying due to a lie told by a FOREIGNER!!!
        and by a guy responsible for going to Uganda personally to tell them to kill gay people. she has no clue..but we see what her true thoughts are about gays. she automatically sided with the attacker, and assumed the gay guy was at fault and MUST have done something to deserve it. makes me want to punch the next straight person i see kissing in public. old granny should be fine with that right?..I mean all I have to say is that they were acting lewd in front of some non existing kids, and I will get her approval…good thing old farts like her will be dead soon. we don’t need any more closet bigots teaching kids its ok to kill people and get away with it by lying. in RUSSIA where this man is from…he would not have such a good life as he does here, and yet because of HIM..a REAL citizen has died..in his OWN country. and the attackers entire community LAUGHED with glee at news of the death. makes me ill
        perhaps grannies attitude will change when she is walking down the street and someone punches her in the neck because they don’t like the look of her dentures!

        Reply
      • 37. dieter  |  March 16, 2010 at 12:02 am

        to straight grandma:

        Straight guy hits on a lesbian in a bar.
        Lesbian punches straight guy.
        guy dies.
        Lesbian goes to jail for murder.

        Gay guy hits on a straight guy in a bar.
        straight guy punches gay guy.
        gay guy dies.
        straight guy gets applauded and walks away scot free.

        THAT is America!

        and YOU are promoting it.
        death won’t come soon enough for you.

        Reply
      • 38. fiona64  |  March 16, 2010 at 10:43 am

        Sacramento has started to really freak me out. I no longer read the Sacramento Bee regularly because of the *huge* amount of hate speech in the comments section. Argh.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 39. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 16, 2010 at 11:37 am

        Scott Lvely and his little sheeple at his side need to come out of the closet and admit that they are in a May-December romance. No wonder this man is so willing to twit the facts about the man who was killed, and no wonder he is willing to sponsor legislation in Uganda to make being born gay a capital offense. He is getting rid of the current competition. This may sound sold, but my gaydar goes off superstregth watching these two.

        Reply
      • 40. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 21, 2010 at 2:37 am

        Well, what can I say about this “Russian” story… I’m not surprised… Not surprised to see these people laughing because I live amongst them in Russia, and I know if something like that were to happen here, they would be laughing just like that… When in February I shared on this blog my views on Russia and homosexuality — I wasn’t lying or exaggerating… if anything, I was downplaying. And this story is case in point!

        And Dieter… You’re a fucking asshole to talk like that to Straight Grandmother… without giving her a chance to see that those words of Scott Lively could have been untrue. If that guy really pulled down his pants, then the police report should have mentioned that his body was found like that… or there must be some reliable witnesses. Of course, we shouldn’t believe this motherfucker Lively, we need facts. But you shouldn’t jump people like that… maybe Granny didn’t know who this Lively is, maybe she assumed she can trust his words? You could have expressed this without insulting her and threatening her grandchildren! I don’t know who embarrassed me most in this story — my “fellow” Russians who laughed at the supposedly gay man being killed, or you, my “fellow” gay man, who couldn’t explain her why she might be wrong in this case without insulting her and threatening her grandchildren… I guess, it’s the latter… I’m embarrassed to be gay right now, to be in the same “gay men” group with you! Those Russians are ignorant and that’s why they’re bigoted… but for you I have no excuse. You are turning into a hater, you harm our cause, you harm us, yourself and our allies… Stop this shit right away!

        –Kirill, Russia

        Reply
  • 41. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Yeah I just realized something…..In what 5 states and recognized in some states….. Marriage Equality is legal therefore that is over 18,000 couples men and women and those who read btw the lines who cannot openly serve…..if someone chose to work for the armed forces that is already married they can’t…..thats discrimination at the federal level and is illegal…..END DADT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  • 42. dieter  |  March 14, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    WOOHOO Insider info:

    in a few days it will be announced that ABBA is going to be inducted into the Rock and roll hall of fame…

    Reply
  • 43. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 14, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    Supporters of DADT (are there really any?)

    Unfortunately, yes, and they’re powerful. Senators like John McCain and Jeff Sessions, Marine Corps commandant Gen. James T. Conway, and so on. However, even more powerful people are against it, like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and President Obama. Let’s hope the House and Senate bills move forward!

    Reply
  • 44. Ronnie  |  March 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Nah…John McLame doesn’t count…..he can’t control his own wife and daughter from talking out against him…..So Sad….but good for us…yeah?…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 45. jimig  |  March 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    I am a vet and I am streight, I served with a number of Lesbians and Gay services men and women. I never once heard anyone complain and never once witnessed any of them not performing there duties. And everyone of them were just a proud as I was to serve their country. I get so pissed off at hearing people say gays effect moral.

    The truth is they do effect moral if you are a closet gay or maybe attracked to the same sex. Just like women effect moral if you only view them as less or housewives. Ot they effect moral if you are not secure in your own self idenity, guess thats why I was never effected.

    The nice thing about having same sex parents you get an oppertunity to grow up in a loving home that supports you regardless. I think Same sex parent or at least mine are less likely to force social immaiges on someone which allows them to grow into their own person. I also think same sex parents are more likely to grow open and healthly children because they have experinced hate so much that they raise their children not to hate to be more open and excepting. I say this to piont out these leaders making these decisions haven’t had this oppertunity, I would guess most of them are raise to think gender equals roles that are expected.

    I would also say most families that are not same sex raise their children not to be open but close minded. I love the data that this trial brought forth showing how ssm adult raise healthy happy children. I truely believe most of these law makers are not open minded and therefore afraid.

    Reply
  • 46. jimig  |  March 14, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Just a reminder I will try and post more information Monday on Lt Dan coming to UC Merced, Merced California. I do not have the detail but I understand it is going to happen and willl be open to the public.

    Reply
    • 47. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 16, 2010 at 11:34 am

      JImiG, could you also find out if there will be any YouTube or Internet feeds of this, for those of us who are on this side of the US?

      Reply
  • 48. dieter  |  March 14, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    good news:

    MIAMI – Those who work with seniors say they’re seeing growth in the number of people in their 60s, 70s and 80s coming out of the closet as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

    Social scientists have long noted that people are coming out younger and younger. They say there’s a similar trend at the other end of the age spectrum.

    Growing awareness and acceptance of varied sexualities and gender identities in the U.S. helps explain the shift.

    Support groups and services have cropped up to help such seniors.

    Experts say coming out late in life comes with a unique set of hurdles. That includes fear of being shunned by children and grandchildren and a sense of loss over having fewer years to live life outside the closet.

    Reply
    • 49. Jay  |  March 15, 2010 at 3:48 am

      This is wonderful, but also quite sad. I came out to my friends at 16 and my parents at 18, and I simply can’t imagine having to live hiding who I was for 60/70/80 years.

      Good for them, I say.

      Reply
  • 50. Jay  |  March 15, 2010 at 3:50 am

    I heard about this, and was absolutely appalled that she had been forcibly outed simply because she didn’t co-operate with the police on a completely unrelated matter.

    DADT needs to be repealed, and soon. These people are willing to put their lives on the line for their country, and they’re repaid like this? So sad.

    Reply
    • 51. dieter  |  March 15, 2010 at 3:54 am

      This is the e-mail I just received in my response to Smuckers decision to not allow Johhny weir to skate in their show because he is TOO gay.

      as you can see, not only are they denying the facts, they have as yet refused to make any sort of public comment.
      THROW your smuckers products away!:

      Thank you for contacting The J. M. Smucker Company regarding your questions about our Stars on Ice Sponsorship. Our Company has been a proud supporter of figure skating for many years.

      We are disappointed that there is untrue and inaccurate information being disseminated about the selection of athletes to perform on the Stars on Ice tour. Each year IMG, owner of the tour, company, assembles a team of exciting, talented and accomplished figure skaters.

      The J. M. Smucker Company would not tolerate discrimination of any kind during the selection process of tour athletes.

      The current cast of the Stars on Ice tour is comprised of very talented performers including the Olympic Gold medalist, Evan Lysacek and the current U.S. National Champion, Jeremy Abbott.

      While IMG wishes it could accommodate many more talented skaters as part of the cast, the fact is IMG cannot sign every skater to participate on the tour.

      We thank you again for contacting us and allowing us the opportunity to clarify the inaccurate information being reported about the Stars on Ice tour.

      Sincerely,

      Judy Tann
      Consumer Relations Representative

      Ref # 9037075

      Reply
      • 52. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 15, 2010 at 5:52 am

        Dieter, I got the same email, Reference Number 9037277, signed Patty Erb. I told them that the boycott would continue until there was a much pucblicized invitation to Johnny to appear on the show, and that if they had anything further to say, they have my number. In short, as I am sure you did, I called them out on their BS.

        Reply
      • 53. Ronnie  |  March 15, 2010 at 7:00 am

        I’m wondering how Evan Lysacek is going to be doing a national skating tour wile training and being on Dancing With the Stars……I’m just saying?…….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 54. Sagesse  |  March 15, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Slightly off topic. Interesting article on the media relations effort for the first same-sex marriages in DC and insights for future campaigns.

    http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/03/cathy-renna-on-how-the-media-covered-the-dc-weddings/

    Reply
  • 55. Steve Lopez  |  March 15, 2010 at 6:37 am

    DADT is a joke and always has been. I served 15 years in the USAF and while my peers seldom spoke of gays in the military they knew we were around. I had severals affairs in the barracks and some were known to be gay and no one cared. As for critics saying saying gays can’t be in critical jobs that’s BS I was working in the Missile fields and before that had access and worked (4 years) on Air Force One. Who says we can’t hold important jobs and do them well!

    Reply
    • 57. Tasty Salamanders  |  March 15, 2010 at 6:50 am

      Opps I forgot to close the url tag.

      Reply
    • 58. Alan E.  |  March 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm

      In Pakistan, it’s ok if someone changes sex to marry someone of what was originally the same sex. It’s not ok for that person to be gay and have a SS relationship.

      Reply
    • 59. David Kimble  |  March 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm

      Thanx, this does indeed raise interesting questions, however, most people I have known, who are neither sex and/or transgendered will usually identify with one sex and then become that sex. A few years ago, there was a program on (LOGO gay channel) that explored the Hedra (spelling), who live in India. Many are ostracized from their families and live in a communal setting with others of their kind.
      <3 David

      Reply
  • 60. Bill  |  March 15, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Watch this video clip regarding Uganda. Send it to everyone you know:

    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/anti-homosexuality-bill-uganda-global-uproar/story?id=10045436

    Reply
  • 63. Dave T  |  March 15, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I’m kind of curious about this:

    However, by 54%-38%, respondents said gays in the military should face restrictions on exhibiting their sexuality.

    What exactly do people expect here? LGBT in the military are going to wear something different from their straight counterparts? I expect they’ll be required to wear uniforms, just like the straight folks.

    They’re going to behave differently? Probably the only behaviour that would be a problem would be hitting on the people they work with, and there are laws and policies in place to address that – it’s called sexual harassment.

    This question is so vague as to be essentially meaningless & should never have been asked.

    Reply
    • 64. SEA_Andrew  |  March 16, 2010 at 11:06 am

      Dave,

      The issue is that straight men have no idea how to handle a gay man hitting on them without resorting to violence.

      I have been out since the doctor slapped my butt after birth, so through the years, I have had quite a few girls/women hit on me. I take it in stride. It is no big deal to me and I explain my sexuality quite clearly.

      Most of the time it is ok, sometimes they persue due to the “you have not had ME yet”, or other times I have faced anger at the rejected advance.

      People have to be secure in themselves to be able to handle these situations on both ends of the conversation. Unfortunately, there are some people that just have not yet grown up or cannot handle the fact that people are diverse and may not “be into them”.

      You are correct – there are sexual harassment policies everywhere now. It should not make a difference as to the “who” or the “what”.

      Reply
      • 65. Chris  |  March 16, 2010 at 11:21 am

        Thanks for not generalizing me into the group of violent straight men.

        Reply
      • 66. Bob  |  March 16, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        Chris, well said, we can’t stereotype period, my partner and I owned a business in a very small community, lumberjacks, hunters, farmers, all came in to do business and supported us, what I learned from hat experience is that I had to come to grips with my own sexuality, anyone that is clear about their own sexuality , for example, our next door neighbour, or the lumberjack down the street, who where comfortable being straight, were in no way threatened by us, and actually became good friends.
        The alarm bells go off instantly for guys that are uncertain about their sexuality, they feel threatened .

        Reply
  • 67. Wolfinlv  |  March 15, 2010 at 10:06 am

    My only issue with removal of Don’t ask Don’t tell is that if they remove this there is NO protection for the GLBT community in the military.
    Unless they say at the same moment that they can serve openly and put that into law they can then go back to the witch hunts like they did when I was in the Navy. Locker searches for porn. Straight porn was overlooked of course even though it was a violation as well. Following you to bars etc. Unless protections are put in place at the same time we loose if we loose don’t ask don’t tell.

    Reply
    • 68. Kathleen  |  March 15, 2010 at 10:54 am

      Wolfinlv, the discussion about repeal of DADT has to do with making it law that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military. Neither Obama, nor the military leaders who are advocating repeal of DADT are suggesting that they want to go back to a ban on g&ls serving in the military.

      Reply
      • 69. dieter  |  March 15, 2010 at 11:44 am

        IN THE NEWS:

        DADT is here to stay.
        They did NOT put it in the defense bill or budget.
        Obama does NOT want it repealed.

        Barney Frank: The White House Doesn’t Want DADT Repealed This Year

        According to Rep. Barney Frank, the reason the DADT repeal wasn’t attached to a defense appropriations bill is that the White House doesn’t want it repealed this year. Kerry Eleveld at the Advocate:

        As Rep. Barney Frank told me Friday, “I’m disappointed with the administration talking about delaying legislation for a year. But I’m working with Patrick Murphy [the lead sponsor of the House repeal bill] on it and I’m hoping we can push ahead.” Like many pro-repeal advocates, Frank has consistently pinpointed the National Defense Authorization Act as “the only vehicle” for overturning the ban legislatively. When I noted that the White House has failed to designate the defense authorization bill over a stand-alone bill as its preferred method for repealing the policy, Frank responded, “That’s because they don’t want it done this year, not because they want it done separately.” If Frank is correct, that would help clarify two things: (1) why administration officials declined to comment on the introduction of Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s new repeal bill — because they actually prefer the defense authorization act over a stand-alone bill; (2) why they haven’t advocated for a repeal measure to be included in this year’s authorization act — because they would prefer the issue recede into the shadows until next year.
        When Democrats will have lost control of the house/senate or both

        Reply
      • 70. Wolfinlv  |  March 15, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        But you, Kathleen, are missing my point. I realize that Obama has stated that he wants GLBT to be able to serve openly… HOWEVER other than that all you hear is you never hear what they are going to put in it’s place just if they are going to vote on repealing it. If they repeal it and don’t put anything in it’s place what happens? According to the UCMJ gays are hunted and harassed just like before.

        Reply
      • 71. Kathleen  |  March 15, 2010 at 9:41 pm

        wolfinlv, I understand what you’re saying. I’m just saying that the calls to repeal DADT are a call to allow gay & lesbian people to openly serve. That is, there will be no ban on g&l people from serving in the military, thus no need to hide.

        No one — well, no one except some on the fringe who want to move back in time — but none of the leading military and political leaders is suggesting repealing DADT and simply forcing gs&ls in the military back into the closet. That’s not the public discussion that’s taking place.

        Reply
      • 72. Kathleen  |  March 15, 2010 at 9:42 pm

        drat, once again forgot to close the italics tag.

        Reply
      • 73. Bob  |  March 16, 2010 at 12:12 pm

        Wolfinlv please read Dan Choi’s experience about his return to the military as an openly gay man. He was recently interviewed about his thoughts on this, and what he had to say was mind blowing, basically it’s about us a LGBT people finding our soul, and taking responsibility for our journey on the planet, when we put ourselves forward from that perspective we have to let go of expecting negative responses
        It reminds me of a speach I read and you can find a link which Kathleen posted, by Granny D, she said we are presently fighting slavery of the mind, and in this case the biggest problem is that most people don’t wish to be emancipated from their thoughts or belief of how the world is.
        Lastly, maybe we could just research the other countries who have gone beyond these limitations, and have been serving openly for years.

        Reply
    • 74. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 16, 2010 at 11:32 am

      Also, from what I have read, they are also looking at ways to repeal the sections in the UCMJ that were created in the McCarthy era against being LGBTQQI. They are trying to eliminate both sources of discrimination. Granted the insecure Hateros are having a fit over this, but they will just have to learn to deal.

      Reply
  • 75. dieter  |  March 15, 2010 at 11:45 am

    next election DON’T vote DEMOCRAT!!

    Reply
    • 76. Bob  |  March 15, 2010 at 12:20 pm

      don’t forget Obama is focused only on his health reform, he need the religious right to help him with that,
      if DADT is repealed before his health bill, he can kiss his baby goodbye, what a sad state of affairs, having to pander to relious right.

      Reply
    • 77. rf  |  March 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      No doubt about it, the dems F’ed over everyone on the left and center left (and really all of the center). not just on da gay stuff but everything. one problem with voting them out, at least in the Senate: Supreme Court justices don’t live forever..

      Reply
  • 78. Bob  |  March 15, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    As a Canadian watching your last election, I can say I loved Obama, Canadians in general were elated at this change, but what I didn’t know was to what extent the power is really held by religion, basically religious fundies. So either Obama lied about his support of the LGBT community, or it was news to him that religious right basically owns the gov’t, so he’s not the boss after all, he’s got to be smart enough to get around that though, but smart is actually a detriment in this case which could get him killed if he isn’t careful.

    Reply
  • 79. erasure25  |  March 19, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Wouldn’t the police officers need a warrant to search the service member’s home? And specifically, wouldn’t the warrant need to specify the items being searched for? Any information obtained outside of the warrant is not permissible in a court, right?

    Or is it different for the military/military tribunal?

    Reply
    • 80. Sagesse  |  March 19, 2010 at 10:46 am

      I read that the marriage license was visible through a window. They didn’t have to enter the home to see it.

      Reply
  • 81. Chris  |  March 19, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Maybe the story didn’t pan out quite like we think. Maybe the police went to the service members command to tell them she was withholding information. If the command asks why she would know where this person is, they simply say that she’s married. That would cause too much attention to be drawn to a situation where it would have been documented that they were married to not do something about it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...