Tag Archives: Civil rights

A better idea for a Homeland Security hearing

Sadly, it appears we have attracted a commenter who would like to have a tiny (in so many respects) Loudoun version of Rep. Peter King’s execrable hearings, hearings that further target a minority community already in the crosshairs of a profoundly ignorant hate movement. The small-minded individual in question has been placed on moderation for using exactly the kind of slurs that are the premise of those hearings, scheduled to begin on Thursday.

Eugene Robinson calls this exactly what it is:

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is about to convene hearings whose premise offends our nation’s founding ideals and whose targets are law-abiding members of a religious minority. King has decided to investigate Islam.

Continue reading

Frank Wolf, wrong side of history

Correction below: The New Republic is most definitely not The National Review. I was thinking of an entirely different article. My mistake.

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun.

Frank Wolf thinks that the Justice Department should still be defending Section 3 of DOMA in court:

“Congress has a reason to be concerned” over the Justice Department’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) said Tuesday.

Wolf told Attorney General Eric Holder at an appropriations subcommittee hearing that the Obama administration had abandoned its duty.

“It almost looks like a political decision,” Wolf said. “I think it’s inappropriate and it’s a bad decision.”

I can understand why he’s concerned. It means that if anyone is going to argue in defense of DOMA, it will have to be Congress. That will be an uncomfortable position to be in.

First, let’s clear up any lingering misconceptions resulting from uninformed statements by people who should know better. First, the Obama administration has not stopped enforcing DOMA, nor has DOMA been ruled unconstitutional; second, the decision to no longer defend it only concerns Section 3 of DOMA (the provision that denies federal benefits to same sex couples legally married under state law), not the entire act; third, an executive branch decision to no longer defend a law is not unprecedented; and fourth, the decision does not represent a change in the president’s views (he has always opposed DOMA), only a change in circumstance with regard to the cases under court review.

That change in circumstance is this: in previous cases in which the Justice Department has defended DOMA, the level of scrutiny had already been established by precedent in those courts. In these new cases, it has not. Therefore, anyone in the position of defending the law in these cases must first establish that the lowest level of scrutiny – rational basis review, which basically means that the government doesn’t have to come up with a reason for the discrimination in question – is the appropriate one. What the Justice Department is saying is that they don’t think that can be done anymore, given the changes in the legal landscape since the passage of DOMA in 1996 – but that Congress is welcome to try to do so if that is what they want to do.
Continue reading

No bears to poke

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

Loudoun Out Loud Kickoff:
Leave a comment below if you want to attend.

A bit of background: As recently as 2005, some members of the Loudoun County School Board were discussing a policy that would have prohibited the presentation by our public school drama departments and clubs any work that acknowledges the existence of GLBT people. That ridiculous situation, largely created by former delegate Dick Black and some of his family members, was provoked by a student’s original work. See Equality Loudoun archive. Although the policy eventually adopted by the board did not include unlawful viewpoint discrimination, the debate (which included threatening hate mail and some atrocious behavior at School Board meetings) did result in a chilling effect. The message was, as one drama department head put it, “Don’t poke the bear.” That era of self-censorship has now ended with the announcement that The Laramie Project has been selected as the spring play at Broad Run High School.  This is wonderful news, and when we have all the details we’ll post them here. This award-winning play has been presented by many, many high school drama departments – as it should be.

Here is some more wonderful news: Loudoun will now have a PFLAG support group, and counselors in our schools will have appropriate material to provide to GLBT and ally students seeking support.

Metro DC PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), is starting a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth and parent support group to meet in Sterling.

Loudoun Out Loud Kickoff:

Sunday, Jan. 23, 4-6 p.m.

Leave a comment below if you would like to come and you will be provided location information.

The groups will meet every fourth Sunday during the same time.

It’ll be interesting to see who actually opposes these things and decides to make an issue of it. Would those really be good campaign issues? Advocating that kids be exposed to bullies and told they don’t deserve any help? Preventing parents and children from trying to keep their families together? I get the feeling there aren’t many bears left to poke, not ones of any consequence. We’ll see.

[Note: Meeting location information redacted at the request of organizers in favor of soliciting RSVPs. – P13]

Bob Marshall embarrasses himself again

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

This morning’s Virginia Politics blog brings us tidings of great desperation. In the wake of the historic vote to repeal DADT, Delegate Bob “Virginia’s Chief Homophobe” Marshall claims to be drafting a bill for the 2011 session that would establish a ban on openly gay servicemembers in the Virginia National Guard.

Marshall, who is considering running for U.S. Senate in 2012, is one of the House’s most conservative members. He said Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution gives Virginia the authority to uphold the ban by “reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

{Not to hijack David’s wonderful post, but Mike Kondratick, our candidate against Bob Marshall, has a post up about this issue on Blue Virginia today. Go give him some love! – P13}I’ve helpfully bolded the final clause, as Mr. Marshall appears to have missed it. The “discipline prescribed by Congress” was just corrected on Saturday, such that gay and lesbian patriots can now serve in our military without, as one servicemember put it, “a knife in my back.”

Like the architects of Virginia’s shameful “Massive Resistance” to an earlier era of civil rights, long after the rest of the world has moved on these bitter old men will still be lashing out at their imaginary enemies and wasting everyone’s time. Mr. Marshall’s legislative career needs to join DADT in the dustbin of history.

Bonus: On a lighter note, watch these two videos and tell me you don’t see the uncanny resemblance.

An “alternative” US military?

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

Who knew? The following headline arrived this morning, in the customary breathless manner of the Family Research Council/Focus on the Family/CitizenLink syndicate:

Dueling Reports Released on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’; New CitizenLink Report

“Dueling reports”? We’ve been hearing quite a lot about the long-awaited Defense Department report (PDF) recommending repeal of the dumb, discriminatory, and failed so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, released yesterday. I was unaware of a second report. One would think that this would be news, what with all the media attention surrounding the issue.Oh. As it turns out, the other “report” is the creation of yet another wackadoodle hate group, otherwise known for calling on George W. Bush to engage in nuclear genocide in Iraq and then declare himself “President for Life” in order to deal with the “inadequacies of democracy.” Seriously, this essay was recovered for continued public enjoyment through the magic of Google cache. This piece was not a regrettable aberration, either. Another, earlier one, also scrubbed from the website, contains this passage (Warning: Extremely offensive content):

Mexico is now colonizing America and imposing its language and culture on it. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognize that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence embracing delusion instead.

Just to be clear, the “Center for Security Policy” and its arm “Family Security Matters” introduced this earlier essay by saying it was “a realistic view of our precarious predicament,” and only scrubbed this filth from its website once it received negative attention. So that’s the source – along with its own affiliated hate group “Family Research Council” – that CitizenLink cites as having produced this irrelevant “report.”

Let’s not be too hard on them, though; they did quote an especially horrifying passage from the actual Defense Department report that proves their point:

They An (sic) important message of repeal needs to be servicemembers “will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.” (Bolding in original)

How dare the brass require such a thing of servicemembers fighting for the interests of the United States of America? You would think that our nation was founded on the principle of individual freedom, or the idea that we are all created equal.

The Pentagon, we are further told, is bending to “political correctness.” Had that useless phrase been in existence during the racial integration of the armed forces, I suppose those on the wrong side of history would have applied it to them then, too. From the real report:

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and the Korean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80-90%. Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other cities were still racially segregated.

The report also notes that “the Working Group expects recruiting and retention expenses related to repeal to be negligible,” although Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the findings “do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving,” and that he therefore wants the repeal to be ordered legislatively rather than through the courts.

This suggests to me the recognition that there is a small core of ideologues within our armed forces who will be actively encouraged by hate groups like the FRC and “American Family Association” to create disruption, and that this reality will require special disciplinary attention. Given other evidence of problems with illegal proselytizing and infiltrators who believe they are fighting a “holy war” against Islam, this shouldn’t be surprising – but it’s all the more stark in contrast to the integration that took place in the very different social context of 1953. Every military person with whom I have discussed this is simply amazed that implementation would be an issue; regardless of personal feelings or opinion, in the military when an order comes down the chain of command, that’s the end of it. If there is an “alternative view” of command held by some within our armed forces, that really does need some attention.

Weirdest of all, this will be how history ultimately remembers Senator John McCain: The most visible face of a ridiculous, retrograde pandering to bigotry, steadily contradicting himself and losing his credibility until in the end he turned against even the military in which he found his identity. And for what? It’s an inexplicably humiliating end to a career.