News for the Week Ended December 22, 2010
BY ANN ROSTOW
Victory Pulled From Jaws of Defeat
I really didn’t think this day would come. After the disaster of the last election, after the military ban repeal was left off the list of priorities for the lame duck session, after the ban was put back on the agenda and then defeated in the Senate for the second time, well it didn’t look good.
Until it did.
Now, in hindsight, it does seem as President Obama’s tedious year-long commission was a necessary factor in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And although he could have set that in motion a year earlier, the delay seems less important in the warmth of victory. And surely, the relentless pressure from a range of gay activist groups had a major role to play in winning what is by far the most important Congressional gay rights vote in history.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will not officially end until the President and military leaders attest that the repeal will not harm military readiness. We then have to wait two more months. And even then, it’s not clear that gay discrimination will be outlawed in the military, only that a soldier or sailor’s sexual orientation will no longer be grounds for dismissal. Still, for all practical purposes, the military ban is history.
This morning, Obama signed the repeal into law in front of an adoring crowd and a stage full of leading supporters. His soaring rhetoric was reminiscent of the campaign. And although Obama himself was probably not the key figure in ending the military ban, he deserves the credit now, just as he deserved the criticism we have showered upon his administration over the last two sluggish years. (Sources actually credit House majority leader Steny Hoyer for pulling the fat out of the fire by pushing a stand-alone repeal bill.)
Unlike the hate crimes bill, or the (permanently stalled) Employment Nondiscrimination Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a fundamental advance for our movement. Few of us serve in the military and many of us oppose armed interventions in all but the most clear-cut conflicts. But all of us are nonetheless patriots. The core group of men and women who risk their lives for American ideals personify an iconic valor that transcends politics and culture wars. Hence the ban on gay soldiers was never about shower facilities. It was about keeping gay men and lesbians out of that venerable category. Indeed the entire opposition to gay rights is about drawing a line in the sand with a few routine rules or benefits on one side, and the profound symbols of social respect on the other. We can have hospital visitation, but not marriage. We can be soldiers, but not heroes. This, therefore, marks the first time that the political engines of the nation have moved us over that line.
--
Leadership Matters
The Human Rights Campaign has pursued a linear list of objectives left over from the strategy sessions of the 1990s. Pass a hate crimes law. Pass ENDA. Pass some other incremental bits and pieces. Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
But the Don’t Ask repeal jumped to the top of the list thanks to a coalition of other gay activist groups, some of whom were sharply focused on ending the ban and others who sensed correctly that unlike piecemeal legislative objectives, ending Don’t Ask would be a game changer.
Now, there’s a possibility that other coalitions will come together to bring the next game changer to the forefront. Not an archaic stand-alone workplace bill, but an end to the insidious law that denies federal recognition to the ever-growing numbers of same-sex married couples.
Media Matters has launched a spin-off called Equality Matters, which will be run by Richard Socarides, the controversial Clinton aide who has drawn fire for being soft on Clinton’s destructive policies.
Socarides, in turn, would argue that Clinton and company did the best they could in one of the most antigay political environments in history. In fact, after the Senate vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell last weekend, Socarides emailed his former boss: “92 campaign promise fulfilled!” Clinton emailed back: “Hooray! A long time coming.”
At any rate, Socarides can do no worse a job than Joe Solmonese in putting a face on the gay rights movement and more importantly, voicing our community’s demands. At his side will be the Advocate’s lead reporter, Kerry Eleveld, and backing them will be Media Matter’s white knight, George Soros, and its director David Brock, who described Equality Matters as “a communications war room for gay equality.”
For decades we’ve been working alone as a community with the help of a few brave gay friendly allies in our efforts to crawl forward. Increasingly however, our straight allies are not just cheering from the sidelines, but they are putting a shoulder to the boulder. Whether it’s Ted Olson, David Brock, or the high school students who see this as their generation’s civil rights movement, the extra muscle is not just useful, it’s a sign that while many battles may lie ahead, the war is won.
Much like the military ban, the fight for marriage recognition has been joined by numerous specialized gay activist groups devoted to this single issue. Further, the court battles against the Defense of Marriage Act are well advanced, two of them heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The related fight against Prop 8 is pending at the Ninth Circuit. And marriage laws have been equalized in five states plus the District of Columbia, creating a large cohort of married couples who are denied federal recognition.
Repealing DOMA would not legalize marriage across the country. But it would lead directly to that eventual outcome. And it’s achievable, most likely in the courts, but possibly in Congress as well..
Like the military ban, the battle for marriage recognition can be advanced through the media. And although the American public does not support marriage equality in large numbers, a majority supports civil unions and I imagine a majority supports recognition of those who are already married. Plus, the popular opposition to marriage equality itself is dropping steadily and may now hover around 50 percent or less.
The main point is this. We can no longer waste time, effort, money, political capital and GLBT energy on small aims. We have crossed the line in the sand with the repeal of Don’t Ask, and we must move the front over that line as well. The fight going forward must be for equality, not half measures, and HRC will have to choose whether to lead that fight or lag behind, lobbying for ENDA while the rest of the community works to dismantle DOMA.
Finally, for those who would argue that we can fight on all fronts at once, try to pass ENDA while we’re advocating against DOMA, I will return to an analogy that I used once before. Ask Santa for a bike, a truck and a coloring set, and you’re going to get a truck or a coloring set. Just ask for the bike.
As for ENDA, without going into my full rant against this flawed legislation, as long as we demand less than equality (which is what ENDA represents) not only we will never get equality, but we will undermine all our efforts towards that goal.
--
Will Obama Help Us Kill DOMA?
As I just mentioned, the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld is quitting her job to take over the media reins at Equality Matters. But before leaving, Eleveld interviewed Barack Obama on the eve of the historic end to the ban on gay military service.
Obama admitted that the prospects for passing future gay rights legislation in Congress over the next two years are dim to slim. Yet he seemed determined to make some progress, by implication through the courts or through whatever executive powers can be brought to bear on our intractable problemos.
The President also reinforced his ambiguous shift from outright opposition to same-sex marriage, to possibly, maybe, considering one day that his views might evolve on the subject, In October, Obama implied that his opposition to same-sex marriage might change. To Eleveld, he repeated the same vaguely positive notion, telling her that he was “wrestling” with the issue of marriage equality, and had some friends who were gay married couples.
In the interview, Obama revisited the ill-conceived vision of a federal civil union law, an idea that would put a Congressional stamp of approval on second-class citizenship for the foreseeable future. Happily, since no one on either side favors such a troublesome institution, the idea is not likely to advance. But still, it’s long past time for Obama and others in the middle of the debate to stop presenting this notion as a feasible compromise.
The President, a former professor of constitutional law, told Eleveld that he and his legal team were studying strategies for advancing couples’ rights outside the legislative process, either through directives one imagines, or maybe through court strategies as well.
He also expressed approval for the idea of rational basis plus, a legal test for gay rights cases that would be more demanding than the lowest level of judicial review but fall short of considering sexual orientation as a suspect class.
Obama is not a judge, so his views on jurisprudence are only theoretically interesting. That said, if the Justice Department were to agree that some kind of heightened legal scrutiny is appropriate for the analysis of gay rights cases, I think our lawyers would be quite pleased.
Meanwhile, there’s a federal case well worth watching in Northern California (our favorite federal jurisdiction!) where Karen Golinski and Lambda Legal continue to insist that Karen deserves spousal benefits for her wife, Amy.
Golinski is a staff attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where employment issues are resolved by the judges themselves, acting as administrators.
After Golinski got married during California’s window of opportunity, she asked for benefits. The Ninth Circuit’s Chief Judge Alex Kozinski approved her request, ruling that anything short of full spousal benefits violated California’s antidiscrimination laws. But the Obama administration refused to comply with Kozinski’s directive, claiming that the Defense of Marriage Act tied their hands. Golinski then asked a federal court to force the administration to follow the order. The court heard arguments last Friday, and here we are, waiting.
As you know, the Obama administration has defended both Don’t Ask and DOMA in federal court, claiming that the executive department is honor bound to defend federal law where possible. But what if a federal judge now rules in favor of Golinski? Would Obama and company force this woman to take her case to the appellate courts? Or would they step aside and pay for her wife’s health insurance, harming no one and taking a small step towards fairness in the process?
This seems to me to be just the kind of situation where Obama can make a difference without failing in his (alleged) duty to defend acts of Congress and without interfering in judicial matters.
Faced with a ruling by an appellate judge and a decision by a federal court in favor of offering some benefits, just offer the God Damned benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act won’t come crashing down (unfortunately). Just a small suggestion for something Obama can do while we’re all waiting for a new Congress to be sworn in two years from now.
--
Nothing’s The Matter With Kansas
Hey, I’m in the middle of rural Kansas now, sitting at a little bar in a little town, looking out the window at some train tracks and a great big grey metal wheat storage tower. The sky is white and the temperature is about freezing and the day is turning into evening at the undue hour of four pm.
Mel and I have a new grandson named Jazz waiting for us about four hours down the road in Kansas City! No, I am not old enough to be a grandmother, but clearly Mel is. Oh, I am just kidding honey! (Too late, she left in disgust with that last line to go play bar video games.)
--
arostow@aol.com
BY ANN ROSTOW
Victory Pulled From Jaws of Defeat
I really didn’t think this day would come. After the disaster of the last election, after the military ban repeal was left off the list of priorities for the lame duck session, after the ban was put back on the agenda and then defeated in the Senate for the second time, well it didn’t look good.
Until it did.
Now, in hindsight, it does seem as President Obama’s tedious year-long commission was a necessary factor in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And although he could have set that in motion a year earlier, the delay seems less important in the warmth of victory. And surely, the relentless pressure from a range of gay activist groups had a major role to play in winning what is by far the most important Congressional gay rights vote in history.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will not officially end until the President and military leaders attest that the repeal will not harm military readiness. We then have to wait two more months. And even then, it’s not clear that gay discrimination will be outlawed in the military, only that a soldier or sailor’s sexual orientation will no longer be grounds for dismissal. Still, for all practical purposes, the military ban is history.
This morning, Obama signed the repeal into law in front of an adoring crowd and a stage full of leading supporters. His soaring rhetoric was reminiscent of the campaign. And although Obama himself was probably not the key figure in ending the military ban, he deserves the credit now, just as he deserved the criticism we have showered upon his administration over the last two sluggish years. (Sources actually credit House majority leader Steny Hoyer for pulling the fat out of the fire by pushing a stand-alone repeal bill.)
Unlike the hate crimes bill, or the (permanently stalled) Employment Nondiscrimination Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a fundamental advance for our movement. Few of us serve in the military and many of us oppose armed interventions in all but the most clear-cut conflicts. But all of us are nonetheless patriots. The core group of men and women who risk their lives for American ideals personify an iconic valor that transcends politics and culture wars. Hence the ban on gay soldiers was never about shower facilities. It was about keeping gay men and lesbians out of that venerable category. Indeed the entire opposition to gay rights is about drawing a line in the sand with a few routine rules or benefits on one side, and the profound symbols of social respect on the other. We can have hospital visitation, but not marriage. We can be soldiers, but not heroes. This, therefore, marks the first time that the political engines of the nation have moved us over that line.
--
Leadership Matters
The Human Rights Campaign has pursued a linear list of objectives left over from the strategy sessions of the 1990s. Pass a hate crimes law. Pass ENDA. Pass some other incremental bits and pieces. Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
But the Don’t Ask repeal jumped to the top of the list thanks to a coalition of other gay activist groups, some of whom were sharply focused on ending the ban and others who sensed correctly that unlike piecemeal legislative objectives, ending Don’t Ask would be a game changer.
Now, there’s a possibility that other coalitions will come together to bring the next game changer to the forefront. Not an archaic stand-alone workplace bill, but an end to the insidious law that denies federal recognition to the ever-growing numbers of same-sex married couples.
Media Matters has launched a spin-off called Equality Matters, which will be run by Richard Socarides, the controversial Clinton aide who has drawn fire for being soft on Clinton’s destructive policies.
Socarides, in turn, would argue that Clinton and company did the best they could in one of the most antigay political environments in history. In fact, after the Senate vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell last weekend, Socarides emailed his former boss: “92 campaign promise fulfilled!” Clinton emailed back: “Hooray! A long time coming.”
At any rate, Socarides can do no worse a job than Joe Solmonese in putting a face on the gay rights movement and more importantly, voicing our community’s demands. At his side will be the Advocate’s lead reporter, Kerry Eleveld, and backing them will be Media Matter’s white knight, George Soros, and its director David Brock, who described Equality Matters as “a communications war room for gay equality.”
For decades we’ve been working alone as a community with the help of a few brave gay friendly allies in our efforts to crawl forward. Increasingly however, our straight allies are not just cheering from the sidelines, but they are putting a shoulder to the boulder. Whether it’s Ted Olson, David Brock, or the high school students who see this as their generation’s civil rights movement, the extra muscle is not just useful, it’s a sign that while many battles may lie ahead, the war is won.
Much like the military ban, the fight for marriage recognition has been joined by numerous specialized gay activist groups devoted to this single issue. Further, the court battles against the Defense of Marriage Act are well advanced, two of them heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The related fight against Prop 8 is pending at the Ninth Circuit. And marriage laws have been equalized in five states plus the District of Columbia, creating a large cohort of married couples who are denied federal recognition.
Repealing DOMA would not legalize marriage across the country. But it would lead directly to that eventual outcome. And it’s achievable, most likely in the courts, but possibly in Congress as well..
Like the military ban, the battle for marriage recognition can be advanced through the media. And although the American public does not support marriage equality in large numbers, a majority supports civil unions and I imagine a majority supports recognition of those who are already married. Plus, the popular opposition to marriage equality itself is dropping steadily and may now hover around 50 percent or less.
The main point is this. We can no longer waste time, effort, money, political capital and GLBT energy on small aims. We have crossed the line in the sand with the repeal of Don’t Ask, and we must move the front over that line as well. The fight going forward must be for equality, not half measures, and HRC will have to choose whether to lead that fight or lag behind, lobbying for ENDA while the rest of the community works to dismantle DOMA.
Finally, for those who would argue that we can fight on all fronts at once, try to pass ENDA while we’re advocating against DOMA, I will return to an analogy that I used once before. Ask Santa for a bike, a truck and a coloring set, and you’re going to get a truck or a coloring set. Just ask for the bike.
As for ENDA, without going into my full rant against this flawed legislation, as long as we demand less than equality (which is what ENDA represents) not only we will never get equality, but we will undermine all our efforts towards that goal.
--
Will Obama Help Us Kill DOMA?
As I just mentioned, the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld is quitting her job to take over the media reins at Equality Matters. But before leaving, Eleveld interviewed Barack Obama on the eve of the historic end to the ban on gay military service.
Obama admitted that the prospects for passing future gay rights legislation in Congress over the next two years are dim to slim. Yet he seemed determined to make some progress, by implication through the courts or through whatever executive powers can be brought to bear on our intractable problemos.
The President also reinforced his ambiguous shift from outright opposition to same-sex marriage, to possibly, maybe, considering one day that his views might evolve on the subject, In October, Obama implied that his opposition to same-sex marriage might change. To Eleveld, he repeated the same vaguely positive notion, telling her that he was “wrestling” with the issue of marriage equality, and had some friends who were gay married couples.
In the interview, Obama revisited the ill-conceived vision of a federal civil union law, an idea that would put a Congressional stamp of approval on second-class citizenship for the foreseeable future. Happily, since no one on either side favors such a troublesome institution, the idea is not likely to advance. But still, it’s long past time for Obama and others in the middle of the debate to stop presenting this notion as a feasible compromise.
The President, a former professor of constitutional law, told Eleveld that he and his legal team were studying strategies for advancing couples’ rights outside the legislative process, either through directives one imagines, or maybe through court strategies as well.
He also expressed approval for the idea of rational basis plus, a legal test for gay rights cases that would be more demanding than the lowest level of judicial review but fall short of considering sexual orientation as a suspect class.
Obama is not a judge, so his views on jurisprudence are only theoretically interesting. That said, if the Justice Department were to agree that some kind of heightened legal scrutiny is appropriate for the analysis of gay rights cases, I think our lawyers would be quite pleased.
Meanwhile, there’s a federal case well worth watching in Northern California (our favorite federal jurisdiction!) where Karen Golinski and Lambda Legal continue to insist that Karen deserves spousal benefits for her wife, Amy.
Golinski is a staff attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where employment issues are resolved by the judges themselves, acting as administrators.
After Golinski got married during California’s window of opportunity, she asked for benefits. The Ninth Circuit’s Chief Judge Alex Kozinski approved her request, ruling that anything short of full spousal benefits violated California’s antidiscrimination laws. But the Obama administration refused to comply with Kozinski’s directive, claiming that the Defense of Marriage Act tied their hands. Golinski then asked a federal court to force the administration to follow the order. The court heard arguments last Friday, and here we are, waiting.
As you know, the Obama administration has defended both Don’t Ask and DOMA in federal court, claiming that the executive department is honor bound to defend federal law where possible. But what if a federal judge now rules in favor of Golinski? Would Obama and company force this woman to take her case to the appellate courts? Or would they step aside and pay for her wife’s health insurance, harming no one and taking a small step towards fairness in the process?
This seems to me to be just the kind of situation where Obama can make a difference without failing in his (alleged) duty to defend acts of Congress and without interfering in judicial matters.
Faced with a ruling by an appellate judge and a decision by a federal court in favor of offering some benefits, just offer the God Damned benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act won’t come crashing down (unfortunately). Just a small suggestion for something Obama can do while we’re all waiting for a new Congress to be sworn in two years from now.
--
Nothing’s The Matter With Kansas
Hey, I’m in the middle of rural Kansas now, sitting at a little bar in a little town, looking out the window at some train tracks and a great big grey metal wheat storage tower. The sky is white and the temperature is about freezing and the day is turning into evening at the undue hour of four pm.
Mel and I have a new grandson named Jazz waiting for us about four hours down the road in Kansas City! No, I am not old enough to be a grandmother, but clearly Mel is. Oh, I am just kidding honey! (Too late, she left in disgust with that last line to go play bar video games.)
--
arostow@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment