Gay Soup - Gay Blog

White House Deputy Director of Public Engagement Brian Bond, who also served as the White House's LGBT liaison, will be leaving his post to take up a position as the Democratic National Committee's Director of Constituency Outreach. From the Washington Blade:

Gay Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Brian Bond, is leaving the Obama administration after nearly three years to take up a position as the Director of Constituency Outreach at the Democratic National Committee.

According to Mike Allen of Politico, when Bond starts up at the DNC in August he'll join gay former White House Regional Director, Office of Political Affairs Jeffrey Lerner, now the DNC Political Director to form the outreach team.

Previously, Bond served on the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign as the National Constituency Director. He's also served as the DNC's Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council Executive Director and as the Executive Director of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund as well as Executive Director of the Missouri Democratic Party.

This is a good move by the DNC and will ensure that LGBT outreach is a primary concern in the 2012 election cycle. Let's hope the White House picks another outstanding LGB or T rock star to fill that position.

By now you have heard that President Obama has chosen to throw Social Security and the Medicare and Medicaid programs over the side of his proverbial fishing boat as bait to see if he can get Republicans to give him another really lousy compromise, much as he did last December when he gave up billions upon billions of deficit reduction in order to help Republicans preserve tax cuts for billionaires.

And it looks like the President doesn't really lose if you or I get hurt here: in fact, it seems that, in his eyes, it's to his advantage to fight against his own base as he seeks to be "the adult in the room" in the runup to the '12 election.

So we're going to have to find a way to put The Fear on this guy - and I think I've got a plan to force this President to listen.

And it works like this: if this President ain't gonna be moved by our message, we do it by holding the rest of his party hostage.

Continue reading "Obama Wants To Attack The Middle Class? Take Congress Hostage!"...

Erstwhile GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann seems hell bent to provide additional proof that she's a religious fanatic nutcase. Think Progress is reporting that Bachmann has signed a pledge created by The Family Leader, an intensely anti-gay Christianist group in Iowa that helped spearhead the removal of three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court. The utter batshittery contained the pledge goes on and on, and while perhaps playing well with the Kool-Aid drinking Christianist set, ought to scare the hell out of voters still tethered to reality who oppose a Christian Taliban theocracy in this country.

Should other GOP candidates sign the pledge, it will be yet further proof that the Republican Party is now an anti-knowledge sectarian extremist party. As Think Progress notes:

By signing the pledge Bachmann "vows" to "uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman" by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of "all forms" of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk.

The full details of the pledge signed by Bachman can be found here [pdf]. Here are some highlights of the religious based lunacy:

Continue reading "Bachmann Pledges to Ban Porn; Says Homosexuality Is a Choice"...

On Tuesday, July 5, the California Assembly passed the FAIR Education Act, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), by a vote of 49-25. The bill, SB 48, now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown who has up to 12 days to take action after he gets the bill. Though Brown is considered strongly pro-gay, his signature on the bill is not predictable.

Additionally, while the state Legislature sees the wisdom of leveling the playing field and including LGBT people as subjects worthy of inclusion in social science education, there has been strong opposition from the Religious Right, which claims the bill "sexualizes" education. Since the passage of Prop 8 was largely due to fears that children might be "forced" to learn about LGBTs and same sex marriage, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to think the Religious Right might mount another initiative campaign if Brown signs the bill.

Continue reading "California LGBT Education Bill: Backlash Ahead?"...

Yesterday, I took a brief look at whether the U.S. Supreme Court would reinstate the stay of the California District Court ruling that the military Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is unconstitutional. Some commenters questioned whether the Department of Justice would appeal the Ninth Circuit's lifting of the stay, and some contended that the Administration could not bring the evidence necessary for a continued stay.

Looking at the initial stay granted by the Ninth Circuit back in November, however, a very different picture is presented. Back in November, the Ninth Circuit said (2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22655) that a stay was mandated because the case raised "serious legal questions," Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional, judicial deference to Congress is at its apogee when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies, and the district court's analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal, and courts in the Ninth Circuit should not grant relief that would cause substantial interference with the established judicial pronouncements of sister circuits.

"Accordingly, we conclude that the government's colorable allegations that the lack of an orderly transition in policy will produce immediate harm and precipitous injury are convincing. We also conclude that the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military--if that is what is to happen--strongly militates in favor of a stay. Furthermore, if the administration is successful in persuading Congress to eliminate � 654, this case and controversy will become moot." (citations omitted)

So what's changed?

Continue reading "DADT, Politics, and The Supreme Court"...

Okay, so I've been working what is, on one level, a Jay Inslee story (Inslee is the Congressman from Washington's 1st District, now running for Governor in '12), and, on another level, a story of why Democrats are having all kinds of problems with what should be "natural" constituencies - and why those problems might not be going away anytime soon.

I thought the two elements of this narrative would come together last Monday, when I attended the "announcement event" that marked the beginning of the Inslee Gubernatorial Campaign, and in fact they did, but it wasn't in a way I would have expected, and that's why we have something to talk about today.

I reached out to some helpful outside voices, including Inslee himself; all of that will be brought to the discussion - and as another news organization famously offers to do, I'll report, and leave you to decide.

Continue reading "Do Washington State Democrats Have A Labor Problem?"...

Senator Patrick Leahy has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. It will be the first time Congress will have debated the law since it's enactment 15 years ago.

"The federal government shouldn't be in the business of picking which marriages it likes and which it doesn't, but that's exactly what DOMA does," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "With New York soon joining the other five states and DC that treat all couples equally, the federal government needs to level the playing field for all families."
...
"We thank Sens. Leahy, Feinstein and Gillibrand for their leadership in ending federal marriage discrimination as well as Rep. Nadler for his advocacy in the House," said Solmonese. "We look forward to continuing to work with them on this upcoming hearing and until all marriages are treated equally in the eyes of the law."

While the legislation could hypothetically pass the committee and be approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate, it wouldn't last a hot minute in the Republican-controlled House. There won't be a repeal of DOMA until Democrats control both houses of Congress again most likely - and even then it's still iffey thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats.

On Thursday, June 30th, members of Indianapolis PFLAG joined with other community organizations at the Indiana Statehouse to protest the passage of several bills that will have negative impacts on women, LGBT people, immigrants, workers and teachers. Organized by Allison Luthe-Carter from Jobs With Justice, the statehouse rally was organized to let state legislators, as well as the citizens of Indiana, know that these are bad bills and will do nothing to help Hoosiers.

About 100 people gathered at 5:00 on a sunny afternoon. One of the goals of the organizers was to have all the participants get to know each other. So everyone present was given the task of participating in a human scavenger hunt. Each person was given a sheet of paper with ten tasks, such as "Find someone who has been arrested," and "Find someone who was born outside of Indiana." The sheets were then gathered and at the end of the rally, the person who got the most answers was given a prize.

This game might have been fun, but there was more to it than that. As I said before, the bills that have been passed are bad for Hoosiers. Luthe-Carter feels that there is strength in numbers. If all of these groups band together and work together, they will show the legislators that we cannot be divided.

Continue reading "Indy Coalition of Progressive Groups Rally at Statehouse"...

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling lifting the stay that it had previously granted after its ruling that the Don't Ask Don't Tell anti-gay military policy is unconstitutional. In other words, the court has ruled that there is a world-wide ban on enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and that ban is now effective immediately. The government can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the stay, so it is not yet clear that gay servicemembers are free and clear if they come out. Nonetheless, this is a very significant development.

The question on everyone's mind is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will reinstate the stay, again halting the ban on DADT.

The Ninth Circuit justified lifting the stay as follows:

"The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay."

What does this mean?

Continue reading "Will the Supreme Court Reinstate the Stay on the DADT Ban?"...