DADT: Inside the GOP’s Senate deliberations and Lady Gaga’s new video

September 17, 2010 at 11:16 am 162 comments

(Cross-posted from LGBTPOV)

By Karen Ocamb

Clarke Cooper LCR EDLog Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper distributed a read out of LCR’s meetings with congressional Republican staffers working on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal effort. He gave me permission to share the read out:

Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) met today with the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) minority staff to get their view of the world prior to the scheduled consideration of the FY2011 NDAA. Per the SASC minority staff, there remain enough votes (presumably at least 60) for passage of DADT repeal as well the entire NDAA. While some of the minority members remain “chaffed by the ‘act now deal with it later’ approach” by some majority members as well as the “shoe-horning” of the DREAM Act as part of the stacking of Democrat amendments, the Republican belief remains that there will be movement on the bill. LCR was told this morning in reference to proceeding with debate, “The hay is in the barn.”

In support of this staff view, it is worth noting the following statements made yesterday by fellow Republicans regarding the above mentioned “chaffing” on the amendment and scheduling process:

Office of Senator McCain: “I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ at this time, but I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law. A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before moving forward. And when the Senate does consider taking legislative action, that action should be based on the survey of our men and women in uniform.”

Office of Senator Collins: “Senator Collins would like the Senate to proceed to a full and open debate on the Defense Authorization bill, with members able to offer amendments on all relevant issues. She has encouraged Senator Reid to work with Republican leaders to negotiate such an agreement so that the bill could be brought to the floor.”

LCR is requesting the majority play fair and NOT stack the bill full of Democrat-only amendments that could kill the NDAA for Republicans. McCain, Collins and Brown have taken this position. It would be unfortunate if the show-stopper to NDAA passage was some unrelated special interest amendment(s). On the horizon, post passage of the NDAA, the SASC minority staff believe there will a hearing or hearings regarding the actual DOD implementation of open service.

UPDATE BY EDEN: Meanwhile, a new DADT video by Lady Gaga just hit the interwebz:

UPDATE BY EDEN: Breaking news: GetEQUAL, the Sanctuary Project and H.E.R.O just made a powerfully symbolic point to Senator Jim Webb, who has been dragging his, er, boots on DADT repeal. Lt. Dan Choi was one of the participants in this action.

From their press release:


Gay and Lesbian Veterans, discharged servicemember and Advocates Visit Senator Webb’s Office, Leave Their Combat Boots in Honor of Webb’s past Direct Action and those Serving Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Law

GetEQUAL, The Sanctuary Project and H.E.R.O. implore Senator Support the Legislation Continuing the Process of Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

WASHINGTON – This morning, gay and lesbian veterans and a discharged servicemember along with GetEQUAL – a direct action lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, H.E.R.O. – an Arizona-based grassroots group of community organizers, and the Sanctuary Project – a ministry advocating for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – visited Senator Jim Webb’s (D-VA) office where they implored that the Senator not introduce any amendments that would procedurally block the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The group of advocates supporting the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” entered the Senator’s office in their combat boots, leaving them behind as reminders of the thousands of active-duty, gay and lesbian servicemembers currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Press-ready photos from today’s action will be available shortly at:

During his 2006 campaign for the United States Senate, Senator Jim Webb wore his son Jimmy’s old pair of combat boots on the campaign trail every day. Senator Webb said he wore the boots in tribue to his son, Jimmy, and in tribute of “all the people sent into harm’s way”.

“Senator Webb wore combat boots on the campaign trail every day in 2006 for, as the Senator said, ALL servicemembers serving their country. We are here today to remind Senator Webb that all servicemembers includes the thousands of gay and lesbian servicemembers sacrificing their safety and security by serving honorably in our country’s armed forces,” said Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of GetEQUAL. “We honor Senator Webb’s direct action in 2006, to show his deep committment and passion for his son and others defending our country. We have organized this action in solidarity with that vision, because we want the Senator to truly honor the service of gay and lesbian servicemembers by fully supporting the passage of the Defenese Authorization Act next week, which contains language to further the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.”

“As a Semper Fi, former Marine, I’m here today to tell Senator Webb that these combat boots I’ve worn in service to our country look just like his sons and everyone else’s combat boots serving in the United States Armed Forces,” said Cpl. Evelyn Thomas, a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. “In the line of duty, there are not differences because we are all Americans and we are all putting our lives on the line in service to our country. Senator Webb, your service to this country is appreciated and honored. Next week, you have an opportunity to show me and my brothers and sisters that our service is equally appreciated and honored by you.”

“Jim Webb is Senator Jim Webb because of the gay and lesbian support he received during his 2006 campaign,” said Jimmy Gruender, co-chair of H.E.R.O. “Because of our community’s work to put him into office and the calls and stories we here every day about how this law has affected gay and lesbian servicmembers, many from Senator Webb’s own home state of Virginia, prompted us to do this action today. Senator Webb, the LGBT community stood by you when you needed us. Now, we expect you to stand by us when we need you!”

A November 17th, 2006 article in the Advocate stated, “The effort to defeat Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage apparently pulled thousands of progressive voters out to the polls, sending Democrat James Webb to the U.S. Senate by the thinnest of margins and handing the upper chamber to the Democrats for the next two years.”

Those servicemembers and advocates taking part in today’s action are:

Veteran Cpl. Evelyn Thomas, United States Marine Corps
veteran Capt. James Pietrangelo II, United States Army
veteran Sn. Jose A. Rodriguez, United States Navy
veteran Lt. Dan Choi, United States Army

Entry filed under: DADT trial.

VIDEO: Exposing NOM/”Iowa For Freedom” anti-equality team’s failure in court BREAKING: Prop 8 legal team files argument to 9th Circuit attacking Judge Walker

162 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I watched that video on the way to work this morning. I am glad that someone with so much influence is doing what really seems like a little effort on her part that has much larger implications.

    • 2. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:41 am

      Hi Alan :) I’m glad Gaga is doing this too! You mention “little effort” seems to me she was quite detailed about the persons she interviewed, stories compiled. I appreciate she highlighted the Gender Profiling that goes on despite DADT guideline.

      Thank you Karen for thoughts on this…and thank you for yet another video to show me how to call your senator since I have not done this much.

  • 3. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Hello, hello, senator, you called? I can’t hear a thing

    I have got no service, in the voting booth, you see, you see.

    What-Wha-What did you say, huh? You’re voting on DADT?

    Sorry, I cannot hear you, I’m kinds busy…K-kinda busy..K-kinda busy….. ; )


    • 4. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm

      LOL! :)

    • 5. Jen-Bunny  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:20 pm

      LOVE IT!!!! <3

  • 6. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:22 am

    but I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law.

    But doesn’t the language say that it won’t go into affect until after that review process he is talking about?

  • 7. AndrewPDX  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:26 am

    scribin’… will watch video later

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 8. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:30 am

    scribin’ also

    • 9. JonT  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm


  • 10. Linda  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Re: the statement from McCain’s office–Now that DADT has been found to be unconstitutional is it still appropriate to base the repeal on how those in the military ‘feel’ about it?

    Do we do that with other legislation that has been found to be unconstitutional…give folks a chance to fill out surveys on how it’s going to impact their life if we actually follow our constitution?

    It seems that the situation has changed now that DADT has been found to be unconstitutional. All those ‘wait and see how everyone feels about it’ arguments are moot, imho.

    • 11. Anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:48 am

      And everything I have been hearing about those surveys is that people are either simply not turning them back in, or are indicating in droves that they are not, in the least, affected by homosexuals serving in the military and DADT should be repealed.

      Enough, already.

    • 12. draNgNon  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:54 pm

      seems to me that a whole lot of states have been doing exactly that. except the “survey” has been ballot propositions to ban gay marriage


  • 13. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Great video. I was so hoping they would answer. I have phone phobia, so I used to Contact both my senators yesterday.

    • 14. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:54 am

      I appreciate this info, LLB. I, too, have a dreadful case of phone phobia.

    • 15. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:20 pm

      Great idea!

  • 16. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Wait a minute! We have had 17 years to see the very real effects of this discriminatory law, and the harm it has done to our military, and we wtill have someone who is opposed to legislative action before “a thorough review” can be done! Quit posturing and vote to repeal the thing already! As Moishe told Pharaoh, “Let my people go!”

    • 17. Anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:05 pm

      Moishe. LOL!

      I am now picturing Moses standing there in front of Pharoh with his hand on his hip, shaking a finger at him…

      “OY! Enough is enough! Let them GO already now!”

      He was such a mensch.


      • 18. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        fun mental picture Richard and Anonygrl :)

        Ditto! ENOUGH ALREADY!!

      • 19. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:56 pm

        WAY off topic, but I couldn’t resist:

        Have you heard about the new forensic crime drama centered in the garment and jewelry districts of Manhattan? It’s called…..

        Wait for it…


      • 20. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:40 pm

        I LOVE it! And can you imagine all the traffic Yiddish the actors will have to learn!

    • 21. Steve  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      Not to mention that this issue has been studied to death. There have been over two dozen official studies. Among them about half a dozen really big ones in the last 50 years. Every single one of them concluded that it isn’t an issue. Including one in the late 80s that said it was time to consider open service and the 500+ page RAND study in 1993. Which was entirely ignored by the rigged Pentagon Working Group at that time and Congress as well.

      When the current study was announced, they said that it was about HOW to implement repeal not IF. Now every braindead politician acts like they are studying if there should be a repeal at all. That despite there being hurdles in place before an actual repeal. The study still needs to be certified, so if it actually concludes that it’s a bad idea, nothing will happen.

      McCain is a senile douchebag. Nothing else. He acts like has Alzheimer’s. Time for him to shuffle off.

      • 22. Dave P.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:17 pm

        And when it was decided that racial segregation in the armed forces must end, was there a survey to find out how everyone in the military would ‘feel’ about the idea of racial integration? Was implementing the policy determined only after assuring that nobody would be too uncomfortable about sharing facilities with people from a different race?? Or course not!! Orders were given and orders were followed. We’re talking about the friggen military, Sheeesh!!

      • 23. Steve  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:24 pm

        There was actually small-scale survey. Interestingly, the questions weren’t all that different from the gay surveys. Mostly about housing arrangements and socializing. Not surprisingly, like 90% of the people were against it. Even most of the black service members were against it.

        But they only surveyed one division with a few thousand people. Not this ridiculously astronomical sample size of several hundred thousand.

        More shockingly, there was a survey in the 40s about serving with Jews. Most people were against that too.

  • 24. Sagesse  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:49 am

    Subscribing from work. Reading later.

  • 25. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Tired tonight, think I’ll wrap it up. Will look in the morning what the Defendent Intervieners submitted for their appeal.

  • 26. Tony  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Any news from the 9th circuit court of appeals? IIRC today is the day the opening briefs must be filed for the appeal of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger.

    • 27. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm

      Not yet. I’ll post this here as soon as I get it, unless someone else beats me to it.

    • 28. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm

      I went back and reread the briefing schedule. Am I understanding that they have until 11:59pm tonight to file it?

      • 29. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:02 pm

        That’s probably right, yes.

  • 30. Richard W. Fitch  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    If McCain and his ilk have their way about delaying until the issue has had the chance for “a thorough review”, we’ll all be long dead before Congress dumps this dehumanizing piece of antiquated legislation.

    • 31. Anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm

      The good news (I suppose) is that John McCain is older than dirt, and so will probably predecease us all.

      I SO don’t want to wait for that to be the way this gets solved, however.

      Maybe I will call him and say

      “Look, John, here’s the deal. I don’t want to wait for you to DIE to have the right thing done here, but we know that it will happen eventually (both you dieing and the right thing happening).

      But instead, how about you do the right thing and pass the defense spending bill and get DADT off the books once and for all. You don’t want it in there, I don’t want it, the military doesn’t want it, nobody except some far right conservatives (who want a lot of things that are just plain wrong, mind you) wants it.

      Enough is enough!”

      “P.S. I wish you continued good health and a long happy life. Wish us the same and repeal DADT, DOMA and all related legislation, please?”

      • 32. Anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:44 pm

        And I will do it on the phone, because I can SAY dying correctly, I just can’t SPELL it, apparently.


  • 33. Jen-Bunny  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Dear John mcCain,
    Taking a survey about how servicemembers “feel” about DADT still won’t change the fact that teh gays are in the military. They’re still gonna be there with or without DADT. So please STFU and quit being a grumpy old man.



    • 34. Steve  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm

      He is getting senile. He couldn’t change even if he wanted to.

      • 35. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm


        Just saying…

      • 36. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:08 pm

        I agree Joel. McCain is looking a little thin and meek these days.

        As an Arizona resident I am ashamed that McCain leads the senate race here…again. We just can’t get rid of him.

        I think if the Election were in July, he’d be gone by now (since the bulk of the snowbird elderly right-wing christian republicans are back east.)

      • 37. Jen-Bunny  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:19 pm

        He’s starting to become one of those super crazy old people….I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanders the Senate Floor mumbling to himself!

    • 38. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:04 pm

      Maybe he’s so grumpy because he thinks the gay servicemembers are getting something he isn’t?
      Just sayin’…….

      • 39. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:07 pm

        All he had to do is aim his garage door opener at his chest…

      • 40. bJason  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:07 pm

        something he isn’t getting OR is no longer capable of giving.

    • 41. Carpool Cookie  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm

      Dear John McCain:

      Don’t worry….you have such a huuuuge stick up your @ss no one will be able to violate you in the showers if you visit the barracks.

      It will all….be….okay.

  • 43. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Ex Ex-Gay Wade sets the record straight…so to speak. Pretty scary. Thanks Wade.

    • 44. bJason  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm

      Thanks, Wade. More power to you!

      And thanks, LLB!

    • 45. Dave P.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:55 pm

      “This video has been removed by the user”.

      What was it?

      • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm

        Interesting. Must have ticked off a lot of right-wingers.

      • 47. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm

        All the more reason to leave it up.

    • 48. Carpool Cookie  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:36 pm

      WHAT WAS IT??? I am really interested now. I hate to miss good gossip!!!

      • 49. ElsieH  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:41 pm

        He was exposing the ineffectiveness of the de-gaying treatments and discussing Christine O’Donnels link to the ex-gay thing. It was shown on the Rachel Maddow show as well.

  • 50. bJason  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Office of Senator McCain: “I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ at this time”

    At least he is honest … at THIS time! What an ultra-maroon!!

    I think that, since DADT has been declared unconstitutional, they should replace the watered-down garbage of a “repeal” that is now in the NDAA with the MREA. Of course it won’t happen but can you imagine the scene if it did?

  • 51. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Are really gonna have to wait til midnite to see the D-I’s brief? Do they stand to benefit in any way by waiting til the last possible minute to file?

    • 52. bJason  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:01 pm

      I would guess that they aren’t finished trying to cram the word “procreation” into as many places as possible.

      AND/OR they plan to hold the document in hand and pray over it until the absolute last minute.

      • 53. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        I think you’ve hit on the right answers, bJason!

      • 54. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:24 pm

        They didn’t used to like it when we called them Breeders. Now they can’t stop bragging about it.

  • 55. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Can anyone here play devil’s advocate and speculate about the points the Proponents will argue? Snarkiness is, of course, always appreciated, and offers a good laugh, but a thoughtful answer would also be appreciated.

    • 56. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:33 pm

      It has to be the same old tiresome points…since they can’t bring anything new to the table…

      Although, I am a betting woman…and I would think they would try to sneak some things in.

    • 57. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:35 pm

      On the standing issue, I can.

      They will argue that it undermines the initiative system if the proponents are not allowed to defend, in the face of an indifferent or hostile legislature and executive. The initiative system is supposed to be populist, and allow “the people” to legislate. If the people can’t continue to defend against a court challenge, it undermines the system, which is supposed to be designed to let the people overcome an indifferent, corrupt or hostile legislature and executive.

      IMO, the system is flawed in that it is far too easy to get something on the ballot anyway, and civil rights are not for voting on.

      • 58. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:41 pm

        How would you expect the ninth to respond to that?

      • 59. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:59 pm

        Kate, it’s very hard to say. The language in Arizonans for Official English that everyone keeps pointing to is dicta; that is, it was a statement not necessary to the outcome of the case, which had been dismissed as moot because the one named plaintiff had voluntarily left her state job.

        However, you have to think that it does reflect the thinking of the SCOTUS because it’s in there. Technically it’s not binding, though.

        I haven’t fully analyzed the attempts to distinguish California law from Arizona law on this point. I believe that one of the points the other side has made is that AZ law didn’t permit intervention by the proponents, but that CA law must because the proponents were involved in Strauss v. Horton. Not sure about that, or even how relevant it is.

      • 60. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        Ann, I have learned SO MUCH from you and Kathleen; thank you.

      • 61. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:16 pm

        Kate, you’re welcome. That’s very kind of you.

        I feel as though I spend a lot of time here saying, “well, we can’t be sure about that” because so much of the law, especially in something somewhat new and untested like this, is very uncertain. People like to think the law is very black-and-white, but a lot of is is very subjective.

  • 62. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian charity that helped lead the fight against civil unions, spent so much money politicking last year that it had to pay the IRS $20,741 in taxes for its “excessive lobbying,” according to its latest tax return.

    The nonprofit group reported spending $125,695 on lobbying last year, a huge jump over the zero dollars it said it spent on lobbying in 2008. The change comes after at least two complaints were filed with the Internal Revenue Service about the forum’s extensive political activities.

    “This tax form just confirms what we had suspected, and that is that they engaged in excessive lobbying, that they have no charitable programs, that they are 100 percent a lobbying organization,” said Holly Huber, who filed a complaint with the IRS in June on behalf of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church. “They should not be a tax-exempt nonprofit charitable organization. They are a political action group.”

    • 63. nightshayde  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:50 pm

      That. Is. Beautiful.

  • 64. Miles  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Aren’t Perry appeal briefs due today?

    • 65. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 4:43 pm

      No sign of them yet.

  • 66. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    For the LOL factor:

    A candidate for the Washington State house of representatives said the Girl Scouts of America is a hotbed of lesbianism and atheism

    He also charged the Girl Scouts with being a “pro-abortion, feminist training corps.”

    • 67. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:49 pm

      Where do I sign up???

      • 68. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:51 pm

        You can join my troop any time, Kate!


      • 69. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:55 pm

        I’m in! Can I start getting badges now?

      • 70. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:02 pm

        Kate, for your first badge you’ll need to demonstrate your knowledge of poultry and eggs by making a delicious omelet.

        Of course, I’ll have to subject it to rigorous testing, including tasting. Extensive tasting.

      • 71. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:06 pm

        But Ann, that’s a cooking badge, not a chicken badge. And I’m not into cooking…..

      • 72. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:18 pm

        Kate, neither am I. :(

      • 73. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:15 pm

        I LOVE to cook. Kate, you supply the eggs, Ann, you be the taste tester, and anyone who wants an omelette bring your own fixings. I will need some good, real butter, because if you are going to do it up, you should do it right, and we should get some fresh oranges for squeezing, and some really good coffee.

        Hey, sounds like it is time for another party at Kate’s.

      • 74. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:19 pm

        I’ll bring the coffee, creamer, and the challah.

      • 75. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:24 pm

        Definitely it’s time again to gather here at the ranch for good food and dear friends – especially those who like to cook!

      • 76. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:46 pm

        I’ll knit hats for everyone.

    • 77. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 5:58 pm

      Can you say “Thin Mints?” COOKIES FOR ALL!

      • 78. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:03 pm

        MMM, Thin Mints. NOM, NOM, NOM.

      • 79. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:07 pm

        And Thin Mints make the best shells for banana split pies. Yes, even better than graham cracker shells. But the best way to turn them into the crumbs you need to make the shell is to freeze them before you put them in the food processor.

      • 80. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:38 pm

        Are you kidding me? I bet the GS Cookie branch is ultra-conservative. They charge high rates, use a large network with a free labor force, and they hammer the sales tactics to the lowest ranks (ie cuteness sells). Plus they know their cookies are addictive, to the point that some people eat whole boxes in a sitting or store them for the colder months.

      • 81. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:15 pm

        @Alan, don’t spill ALL of our secrets. C’mon.

    • 82. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      I keep forgetting that you don’t have to be ancient to be senile! Thanks for the laughs, Ann!

      • 83. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:03 pm

        Yeah, for a 25-yr-old he does seem pretty senile.

    • 84. nightshayde  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:06 pm

      Those sound like selling points to me. =)

    • 85. Judy  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:06 pm

      Bring on the lesbian atheists with Thin Mints! Let my doorbell ring!

      • 86. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:08 pm

        Ding-dong, Judy – Kate calling.

      • 87. Judy  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:31 pm

        Why, Kate, I see by your trendy green uniform that you’ve earned your Gaga badge. Come in!

      • 88. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:33 pm


      • 89. BK  |  September 18, 2010 at 3:39 am

        New Girl Scout motto: “Come to the dark side. We’ve got cookies…”


    • 90. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:08 pm

      And if the GSA is a feminist training corps, does that mean that Alan Alda is a Girl Scout? I want to see what he looks like in that outfit!

      • 91. Joel  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:13 pm

        Why, when you’ve already seen Jamie Farr wearing one?

      • 92. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:15 pm

        Uh-oh; I forgot about the outfit. Ann, does your troop require the uni?

      • 93. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:20 pm

        We just go for a sash or vest, to wear the pins and badges on.

        A former co-leader (long, messy story) got really into it and bought a lot of the official adult uniform stuff. I couldn’t believe it. She never was a Girl Scout as a kid, and I was one for years, plus I was a counselor at GS camp, but she tried to out-Girl Scout me. She also tried to tell me what elements our program “must” include. It was pretty funny.

    • 94. Judy  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:36 pm

      What does he think, then, of the Red Hat Society? Those offending older ladies who think nothing of rules, rules, rules!

      • 95. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:59 pm

        You mean the group where the only rule is to live life to the fullest and laugh as much as possible while committing random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty? I love those ladies!

      • 96. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:00 pm

        Lesbian atheists, all of ’em!

  • 97. Ray  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    I am gay and usually line up much more with republicans but if they choose to keep throwing gay people under the bus the republicans will LOSE the gay support and young voter support needed to make any real changes.. I am watching closely and am sure many others are and if John McCain and others want to exclude gays from their party then the republican party will be the BIGGEST LOSER. I do not like Obamacare and other issues and want to be able to vote Republican, but if they don’t stop pushing gay people down I will vote for Obama and the democrats in my state. I am watching!

    • 98. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:03 pm

      The face of the Republican party of the future is Meghan McCain and similar – people who are fiscally conservative but see the need for some government programs. They are also very socially liberally (compared to their parents, anyway).

      If the Repugs keep pushing the moderates and social liberals and non-whites away, this will be the last generation of Republicans.

    • 99. Dpeck  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:32 pm

      My goodness, Ray. Either you have not been paying much attention to how the Republicans have been treating us for a long time now, or you are just a very VERY patient man. If you have not yet been convinced that the Republicans are actively working to oppress and harm LGBT Americans, what on earth will it take for you to see this? Have you read the Texas GOP oficial party platform?? Have you listened to McCain talk about DADT? Or any number of GOP politicians vilifying us and telling the public to vote away our rights? Are you unaware of the money connections between extreme anti-gay religeous groups and GOP politicians?

  • 100. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 17, 2010 at 6:47 pm


    I didn’t catch the whole thing, but I’ll post it as soon as its available.

  • 102. inv3rt  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Lady Gaga you’re so fake…
    Wearing a meat dress reallymeans “I have no talent so I do stupid, outrageous things to keep your attention”.
    This is just a ploy to get us gay people to buy more of her records, she doesn’t care about the gay community, she doesn’t care about animals she doesn’t care about anything except her cocaine and what kind of money is coming into her daddy funded hoax on society, if she did care, she wouldn’t be reading her message off a cue cards like most politicians do in their silly campaign adds, she would be well rehearsed looking into the camera with serious intent on capturing something in the moment that spoke to all of our hearts and souls about this very very serious situation.. But no she prances around in her fake hair and lashes ( a women who can’t even admit if she is gay or bi or what ) and speaks about an issue she can’t even be heart felt about.. No she has to read what is on her mind off cue cards pfftt… Well like she has said before “she just isn’t that whimsical I guessl” Next thing you know she’s is going to be prancing around in a Dolphin wearing a knife and a net on her head…

    • 103. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:36 pm

      No…not really….sorry…you’re wrong…nice way to treat an ally who actually employs LGBT American no question asked….I was at the March for Equality on DC…She spoke at the march….no cue cards….straight from her heart….stop being a Judging Jan…you don’t even know her… : I ….Ronnie

  • 104. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    OK! OT for a minute..

    The other day in the 40 day fast thread…

    elliom had a great idea, see comment 135, about doing a 40 food bank donation thing as our response. Please take a minute and go read through some of that, if you have not already.

    We are doing a conference call on Skype tomorrow at 1pm Eastern which is 10am Pacific to brainstorm about it. If you are interested, please drop me an email at as I will be putting together the call. Include your Skype name and be on at the right time and I will add you into the call.

    If you are interested but not available then, drop me a line anyway and I will put you in the email group to keep posted on all of this.

    Thanks! You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.


    • 105. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:05 pm

      You got my e-mail and name, right? So excited – I have several ideas!

      • 106. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:07 pm

        I did, and I have you set to go! I am excited to hear your ideas!

  • 107. Tomato  |  September 17, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Nice article about Commander Beth Coye who was followed an harassed in 1980 under suspicion of being a lesbian. She had to fire 8 men and women for “cause of homosexuality.” She’s a founding member of SLDN, and has written two books about her military experience. She’s now 72, and is still fighting fiercly.

    24 or 72… doesn’t matter. Every ally counts, every person has worth.

    If Lady Gaga doesn’t float your boat, rest assured she floats someone else’s.

    I feel I have a lot more in common with Commander Coye, but that doesn’t mean I discount Lady Gaga.

  • 108. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    While we’re waiting for the briefs (that’s plural, because both Imperial County and Protect Marriage’s briefs are due today — they’re probably cross-checking them or something), here for your amusement is a letter to the editor that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 13th, not too long after the huge gas pipeline explosion that rocked San Bruno, just south of San Francisco:

    First, I pray for those families who suffered in the San Bruno pipeline blast; this is a tragedy that could’ve been corrected with the right care being applied beforehand.

    However, on a more divine level: This blast can be viewed as God’s divine judgment upon San Fransicko (sic) for its ultra-leftist and anti-normal way of doing things, and for that sad excuse of a judge who overturned the will of the people in his anti-Proposition 8 ruling.

    God is speaking, folks. Are you listening?

    Lloyd Marshall Jr., Lockport, N.Y.

    Is it bad maintenance or divine judgment, Lloyd? Make up your frickin’ mind.

    • 109. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm

      Don’t you just want to smack people who talk like that on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say “Bad human. BAD human!” and then make them clean up their own messes?

    • 110. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm

      Maybe it was god who didn’t keep up with the maintenance, in which case it would indeed be both.

    • 111. Linda  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm

      I’ve seen other comments to that effect. All I have to say is God sure does have lousy aim! San Bruno??? Puh-lease! Not exactly the heart of gay-town.

      Seriously, after all that praying and fasting this is the best their god can do? I’d be embarrassed.

    • 112. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm

      And didn’t a huge, massive…..divine…. tornado JUST touch down in New York????? Maybe his god is more pissed at him than “anti-normal” California!!!

    • 113. Jeff  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:16 pm

      If you want to see full on crazy talk see this:

      In California the city of San Francisco has strong political ties within the state with a strong core of homosexual activist that push their own agenda. San Francisco is also known as the Gay Capital or Gay Mecca of the world. Why? This is because the because of the spiritual principality of the Ohlone Native Americans that once populated the area. The prince of this area ruled for thousands of years. Their principle religion was Shamanism. They believed that the tribe’s shamans possessed both male and female spirits (called “berdache/ joya”). They also believed in a third gender(joya) and promoted witchcraft and same-sex love within the tribe. The ancient principality of the areas controlled sexual perversion and witchcraft. When Spain colonized Mexico they begin to establish Catholic missions within the Mexican territories. Several missions were established in the California territory. Missionaries began to realize that some of the tribe’s people that appeared to be female were actually men that dressed and conducted themselves as females. Eventually the missionaries abolished the practice of berdache/joya. However, they did not abolish the spirit that was behind it.

      When the gold rush began in California around 1848, gold was not the only thing that awaited young men seeking to get rich. That same perverse spirit that ruled and controlled the Ohlone tribe was lying in wait for new flesh and blood to control. By water, the voyage between New York and California was between 4 to 12 months. During this time it was not uncommon for there to be intercourse between seafarers. The city of San Francisco was populated with approximately 90% men. Female companionship was available but cost between $4,000 – $8,000 per night in today’s dollars. There just weren’t enough eligible women in early San Francisco to go around. In response to this reality, some of the men agreed to take on the roles of women by becoming dance partners of other men at clubs and bars.

      The gay population began to pick up even more in San Francisco during World War II when the armed forces sought out and dishonorably discharge homosexuals from the armed services. The homosexual men who were discharged were processed on base in San Francisco. Many of these men fell in love with the beauty of San Francisco and stayed. Ever since World War II the gay and lesbian population has rapidly increased.

      In the 1970s arose Castro Street in the Castro District, many gays moved into the area and started their own businesses. They begin to develop a political base and power within the community. In 1977 Harvey Milk became the Mayor of Castro and was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was the city’s first openly gay elected official. Today, times Castro has the highest per capita gay population in the world and is the center of local gay politics….. much more at link

      • 114. Alan E.  |  September 18, 2010 at 10:10 am

        Hmmm. Something can’t be a perversion if it is a normal part of the society you are discussing. I stopped reading there because it is just projecting hatred onto those barbarian natives that were living here thousands of years before the “righteous” white man showed them the error in their ways.

    • 115. Rhie  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:16 pm

      Sigh. Yes, of course, all natural disasters and man-made catastrophes are caused by gay people. It couldn’t possibly be just chance or a confluence of weather patterns or old pipes or badly made levees…

    • 116. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:19 pm

      ROFL….all the natural disasters happen in anti-gay areas (whether semi anti-gay or 100%) & Gay people are responsible for it….bwaaaaa….I’m sorry but aren’t these the same type of whack jobs who spout out “God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah because of the gayness”…you know two lonely cities?……their “logic” & “rationale” are astounding…… stupid…. X ) …..Ronnie

  • 117. Jeff  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Briefs hav been filed as well as a motion for extra long brief (just got the emails)

    ocket Text:
    Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight and – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. Date of service: 09/17/2010. [7479041] (CJC)

    The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
    Document Description: Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants’ Opening Brief
    Original Filename: Ninth Circuit Opening Brief – COMPLETE.pdf

    Docket Text:
    Filed (ECF) Appellants Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight and – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal Motion to file oversized brief. Date of service: 09/17/2010. [7479040] (CJC)

  • 120. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    ProtectMarriage’s Opening Brief:

    134 pages of “blah, blah, blah”, I imagine. Enjoy.

    • 121. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm

      Thanks Ann!

    • 122. Jeff  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:13 pm

      Thank you!

      • 123. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:15 pm

        You’re welcome.

    • 124. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:15 pm

      134 pages?WHY??????

      • 125. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:17 pm

        Remember Twain (I think it was, so much is attributed to Twain that I might as well join the club) was supposed to have said, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one”, or similar.

        Brevity is the soul of wit.

        Having said that, though, the cover pages, table of contents and table of authorities alone take up the first 20 or so pages.

      • 126. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:17 pm

        And “Imperial Interveners?” HA HA HA

      • 127. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 18, 2010 at 9:17 am

        Because they are that full of you know what!

      • 128. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 18, 2010 at 9:21 am

        Don’t these people have anything better to do with their lives than to piss off the federal judiciary and be so frivolous and cavalier with the law?

    • 129. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 18, 2010 at 9:15 am

      Thanks, Ann S. and Kathleen!

  • 130. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    THIS looks sort of new… but just as ridiculous… in their section about standing, they appear to be claiming that because Prop 8 was brought about through a citizens’ initiative, the harm will be to THAT PROCESS if they are not allowed to appeal. Which is rather like the snake eating its own tail, I think (unless I am reading it wrong, and I may be).

    But they still show no harm of any tangible sort anywhere in the standing section. They don’t even attempt to address the four points. They just blow it off with this…

    “Because the Imperial Intervenors should have been permitted to intervene, and because as intervening defendants bound by the district court’s judgement they would have standing to appeal, this Court need not reach the question of the Proponents’ standing at this time.”

    They’ve got balls, I’ll give them that!

    • 131. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:33 pm

      Page 35 — “same-sex marriage is wholly unknown . . . in this Nation’s history and tradition . . . .”

      Buh-bye, Massachusetts, DC, Iowa, and you other states with marriage equality. Apparently you don’t count for nuttin’ in this Nation’s history and tradition.

      • 132. Straight Grandmother  |  September 18, 2010 at 11:36 am


    • 133. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      Wow, Ann sure did call that one, didn’t she!

      And they say Walker’s judgment must be vacated if they are refused standing. This is some ugly stuff here…. Anonygrl, do you stll have those blue chips and flakes hanging around?

      • 134. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:43 pm

        Kate, I would not worry if I were you. Frankly, I think, if asked to take on the case myself, *I* would feel confident in my own abilities to explain, point by point, why this brief is not worth the pound and a half of paper they wasted on it.

        Save those flakes for use as confetti at the parade, my dear. This brief is stinkier than newspaper used for fish wrapping.

      • 135. Ronnie  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm

        Oh anonygrl…you’re being to nice….this brief is in fact stinkier then Louis Marinelli’s dollar store tighty-whities, Brainless Brown’s ugly over worn brown suit, & Maggie Gallagher’s shoe flung feet…. X ) …Ronnie

      • 136. Kate  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        I love you, Anonygrl! You always know the right thing to say. This stuff just looks so … legal, official. Ha – maybe officious!

  • 137. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    On page 33 they explain in some detail why they didn’t present any facts in court, and why they didn’t have to, and why the judge should have ruled in their favor anyway.

    “The State, it follows, “has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of” its laws.”

    It seems to me that the reason is basically “Because he SHOULD have, is all!”

    ” The district court simply could not have violated these well-established legal principles more pervasively. Indeed, the court effectively rejected them from the onset of its decision, opining that “the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence…”

    So… their contention is that the State does not have to show any evidence, and it is unreasonable of the judge to rule in favor of LOTS of evidence when this is the case.


    • 138. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:42 pm

      It is indeed possible to do rational basis analysis without evidence, as odd as that probably sounds.

      • 139. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:46 pm

        I do understand that… but this reads like the judge should have ignored the Plaintiffs evidence in doing so?

      • 140. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:50 pm

        They’re whining that the Judge ignored their evidence, which mostly consisted of citations to old books.

        That is a trial judge’s job, to weigh the credibility of the evidence before the court. They disagree with him, of course, but that was his job.

  • 141. Ed  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    trying to read it….but all i’m getting is…….repeat what we said earlier, repeat what we said earlier, repeat what we said earlier…….

    I mean damn…….it really is the Mad Hatter’s Teacup Ride..

    Little children who dont get their way….

  • 142. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    Oh my god…. this just gets better and better….

    The trial proceedings were skewed from the outset, given that four of Proponents’ expert witnesses refused to testify…

    Basically they are claiming that the fact that the judge videotaped the proceedings EVEN THOUGH NOT FOR BROADCAST scared away the experts. And THAT is why they had no evidence! The fact that they were unable to explain properly to their own witnesses that this was for court records, not broadcast is why this should be overturned.

    This leaves me somewhat speechless. I think that Olson and Boies must be laughing their asses off somewhere right now, as they read this.

    • 143. Ed  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      hey anon….can u message me on facebook? i’m Ed B under richard walters list of friends

      • 144. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:56 pm

        Yep. Will do.

    • 145. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm

      They’ve been claiming that right along.

      “We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence, but it’s Judge Walker’s fault that we couldn’t present any, after he scared away all our witnesses.”

      Some fierce fighters for their cause, those witnesses.

      • 146. Ed  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:55 pm

        Witless es? LOL

      • 147. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:09 pm

        Walker didn’t scare them off. Olson did. And good for him doing so!

      • 148. Ann S.  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:12 pm

        Actually, I think it was Boies.

        And riveting as this is, I slept badly last night, am very tired, and am going off to bed soon.

        Sorry, but I refuse to wait up for whatever Imperial County is going to sling at the wall and hope sticks.

      • 149. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:23 pm

        Goodnight, sleep tight!! And thanks for getting this bit posted!

    • 150. AndrewPDX  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:08 pm

      I keep thinking… in cases where they’ve finally caught that mob boss and you’re the cabbie that witnessed the boss execute the opposition, so of course you’re afraid for your life… they get you witness protection.

      If the defense’s witnesses were really under any kind of threat of life, wouldn’t that have been an option?

      Of course, we all know what the defense’s witnesses were really afraid of — being ridiculed as frauds, having their credibility shredded to itzy bitzy pieces, and being thrown out of any academic jobs due to gross incompetence. Which is what would have happened, I’d wager.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 151. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:28 pm

        They could always get work at the Ruth Institute.

      • 152. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 18, 2010 at 9:31 am

        I am sorry. I had to stop reading for a bit. After the first five pages of severe tautology, I was so dizzy I had to pay a visit to the god of porcelana and swirling waters.

    • 153. Roger  |  September 18, 2010 at 3:29 pm

      If the witnesses they called refused to testify, couldn’t they have called others who were willing to support their case and present some of the mountains of evidence that are supposedly out there?

  • 155. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 9:56 pm

    More importantly, the court ignored an overwhelming body of evidence establishing the common-sense proposition that the institution of marriage has, virtually always and everywhere, been defined as… blah blah blah…procreative…”

    No. There wasn’t. Oh, and he didn’t.

    That one is easily dismissed as just silly hyperbole.

    • 156. AndrewPDX  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:10 pm

      no… it’s not even hyperbole… it’s pure fantasy.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 157. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    In short, the understanding of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the rearing of children born of their union, is age-old, universal, and enduring. No other purpose of marriage can plausibly explain the institution’s existence, let alone its ubiquity.”

    Except, perhaps, the cementing of families through the bartering of women… the exchange of money between men through dowries… the guarantee of keeping land and wealth inside the group by joining people in marriage… all of which are older than the age-old reason of “rearing children” which was done for eons without marriage. But never mind that. Nothing before the mid 1900’s counts as reasonable tradition anyway.

  • 158. anonygrl  |  September 17, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Oops… forgot to close the italics.

  • 159. Eden James  |  September 17, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Hey everyone — if you could move the discussion over to the new thread that posted awhile ago, that would be great:


  • […] Comments Eden James on DADT: Inside the GOP’s S…Kathleen on BREAKING: Prop 8 legal team fi…Kate on BREAKING: Prop 8 legal team […]

  • 161. BK  |  September 18, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Lady Gaga is AWESOME! She just jumped up 50 points (again) on the awesomeness meter… now I just need to figure out if the meter is out of 10 or 20… :)

  • 162. toth  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Man, any time someone calls herself “a voice of my generation”, I want to reach through the screen and smack them.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


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

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...