Recently in Out in Politics Category

More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

While President-elect Barack Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own -- an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.

The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.

The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military. The military discharged about 12,340 people between 1994 and 2007 for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military watchdog group. The number peaked in 2001 at 1,273, but began dropping off sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Last year, 627 military personnel were discharged under the policy.

Will she and Tina Fey share the stage on tomorrow night's show? It seems like a sure bet. I wonder if they will dress the same as Hillary Clinton and Amy Poeler did last spring? It should have an added element of intrigue since Fey has made clear she does not want Palin to win.

The Governor of Alaska and GOP Vice Presidential nominee confirmed on a radio show Friday that she would be on the sketch show, which is drawing record ratings these days, this weekend.

"I don't know what they have lined up for us," Palin said on the Neal Boortz radio show. "I haven't seen the script. I haven't even been hinted at what that script will say....I just want to be there to show Americans that we'll rise above the political shots we take because we're in this doing serious business for serious challenges that face the good American people. That's why we're campaigning and working hard ... and we can do that even through a skit or two on 'Saturday Night Live.'"

The Advocate will go from being a twice-weekly publication to a monthly one, the new editor Jon Barrett confirmed at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association's LGBT Media Summit in Washington, D.C.

"I don't think there is a need for a biweekly magazine anymore with the Web," Barrett said. "We will have more room for bigger stories and we're going to get better writers....You will see more news in the magazine."

Barrett's first issue is the one currently on newsstands that features a cover story about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Here is an excerpt that is relevant to the debate that's been going on this week on this blog:

His promises to gay people -- full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a reversal of "don't ask, don't tell," immigration rights for same-sex couples, a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and passage of the Matthew Shepard Act, which adds sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate-crimes laws -- go further than any presidential nominee in history.

His stance on marriage is the one crashingly false note in his message to gay voters. It is difficult to understand his position as anything but calculated dissembling. Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois says, "I wish he was being brave and bold and doing the right thing, but it's his campaign's and his determination that it would not be helpful or beneficial when running for president of the United States at this particular time. I don't think he can risk any position other than the one he's taken."

Tracy Baim of Windy City Times observes that in Obama's most recent book, "he talks about a lesbian asking his position on marriage. He says, 'I might be on the wrong side of history....' Anybody who says that is self-aware enough to know that they in fact are on the wrong side of history."

Baim remembers pushing Obama in an interview to explain what she calls his "basic hypocrisy" on the issue: "I could sense someone who was trying to be practical and not treat it emotionally. I sat there and said, 'I don't have the same rights as you.' And he said, 'You're not going to get them right away, but here's what is possible.' That kind of equivocation can drive an activist crazy, but his job as a politician is to be practical."

Here is a LINK to the complete cover story by Michael Joseph Gross.

I guess Ellen and Portia won't be getting a wedding gift from Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. He said over the weekend that "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman...I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."

I'm not gonna be knee-jerk because this position is no surprise. But hearing him say it causes me to be very angry and disappointed all over again. Does he believe in equal rights for all or not?

You really didn't want The National Enquirer to get it right for once. But they did: After months of denials, John Edwards finally admitted on Friday that he cheated on his wife Elizabeth.

I have long liked Elizabeth Edwards more than her husband. The biggest reason is because she has unabashedly been a staunch supporter of equal rights for gay people - including their right to marry each other. John Edwards, like all other Democratic candidates, did not. John even went so far as to say that he just couldn't wrap his head around it, being a churchgoing Southern boy and all.

But I don't want to judge him on his infidelity. It happens. Marriages can survive it, or not.
But his lying about it publicly is what makes him look even worse. The former senator and vice presidential candidate did an exclusive interview with Bob Woodruff on ABC's "Nightline" last night. He seemed pretty open but also still not completely honest. So is it his baby? Why would he agree to meet this woman at the Beverly Hilton Hotel last month? Did he really know nothing about the payments being made to this woman?

(I give Edwards major credit for not dragging his wife out to be interviewed to try and save his ass. He said he asked her not to come)

In a statement released yesterday, Edwards tries to explain why he lied: "I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman and asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

He does say that he is willing to take a paternity test to establish the fact that he's not the father of the baby "and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby.

Here's the one part of his statement, which he also discussed in the Nightline interivew, that seemed 100% truthful: "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help."
Elizabeth Edwards, had been diagnosed with breast cancer after the 2004 presidential campaign. But, her husband pointed out, was in remission when he had his affair (how does this make it better?). She has since been diagnosed with an incurable bone cancer.

Elizabeth released a statement that is supportive of her husband, but is also candid and real. Not like most political wives who would stand there smiling at their sinning husband and have no comment whatsoever: "Our family has been through a lot. Some caused by nature, some caused by human weakness, and some -- most recently -- caused by the desire for sensationalism and profit without any regard for the human consequences. None of these has been easy. But we have stood with one another through them all. Although John believes he should stand alone and take the consequences of his action now, when the door closes behind him, he has his family waiting for him.

John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.

The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.

Admitting one's mistakes is a hard thing for anyone to do, and I am proud of the courage John showed by his honesty in the face of shame. The toll on our family of news helicopters over our house and reporters in our driveway is yet unknown. But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John's conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time."

There's a couple of really good political stories on AfterElton.com today including the lead story on Gay-Baiting and what kind of role it might play for John McCain in the presidential election. It is a must read.

This excerpt is from the accompanying article The Pundits Speak: Keith Olbermann and other traditional journalists on gay issues

"When nobody can afford to go to a gay wedding, a straight wedding or a protest of a gay wedding, [the issue] is not going to make any difference," said Olbermann, host of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." "This is the danger of values, if you will, and that's used as a facetious term, values politics - when that's all you've got, when reality intervenes, like nobody can afford to keep their home or put gasoline or home winter heating oil in it this winter, people are going to say, "You're serious? You want me to vote for you when you've ruined the economy, ruined our place in the world, haven't stopped terrorism, made us kind of the bullies of the world, and I'm supposed to vote for you because you have some phony baloney belief that gay people shouldn't have the right to be just as miserable as all the straight married people?"

Really, I sense in the country a strong sense of incredulity to a lot of this and it's not just gender or sexual orientation issues, but all these other things are just being trotted out and thrown out and nobody's responding to them.

God bless Cyndi Lauper. I love this woman. I love her honesty, courage to speak out, and boundless energy to entertain and to do good works on behalf of LGBT people.

Here is an excerpt from her new interview with The Times in the UK that I just found stunning because of its forthrightness. So many people try to be politically savvy or correct when really all we want is to hear what is in their heart.

Here is some of what is in Cyndi's:

Lauper, of course, is very popular with gays. "But I hate that expression," she says. Like they are not quite real people." Unlike some artists, who turn up at GAY or produce an album for the gay fans whenever the hits dry up, Lauper's commitment to the cause is genuine. Her sister Elen is a lesbian, and for a few years in her teens Cyndi tried to convince herself that she was, too. "My sister was gay, my best friends were gay, so I figured I had to be gay. So I did everything they did. I tried kissing girls. But it didn't feel right for me and eventually I was forced to come out as a heterosexual."

In 2007 she launched an annual True Colours tour, which this year features artists including the B52s and Andy Bell, and helps to raise awareness of homophobia. "This community for me is my beloved community," she says. "This is not a money-making venture. I have been running with this community all my life, and when I hear people like George Bush talk about the gay community being antiAmerican it makes my blood boil.

"The guy who saved the White House, one of the heroes who crashed that plane on 9/11, was gay - the rugby player Mark Bingham, who died on United 93. And does Bush ever mention that? Does he f***! That gay guy saved his lousy ass. And this guy who says he prays to God, this guy who promotes hate and fear, this guy we call our President . . . This guy is the true anti-American."

Politico.com submitted a list of questions to Barbra Streisand's website and the superstar/political activist ended up replying with her most wide-ranging answers on the election issues and the presidential candidates to date.

I've picked out a few. You can read them all at Politico.com:

You're a loyal Democrat and supported Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency. Was switching allegiance to Barack Obama simple and instantaneous for you, or did you have to overcome some difficult feelings about him?
We had a very deep bench of Democratic Presidential candidates in the primary, and we were very lucky to finally have two capable, dynamic and intelligent candidates vying to be the nominee. Supporting Senator Obama for President was an immediate decision for me after Senator Clinton ended her bid for the Democratic nomination. Throughout this process, they challenged each other to be better. It was a historical race, with Hillary breaking through that glass ceiling for all women and Barack inspiring young kids that they can overcome their circumstances to reach greatness.
What would you say to Hillary supporters who might be moving to vote for McCain, a number estimated to be around 10-15% of Senator Clinton's fans?
I would urge those voters to take a step back and realize that our country is at an extremely serious crossroad. We are on the verge of a recession, we are grappling with global climate change and experiencing record high gas prices. Our young men and women are still dying in Iraq and so many Americans are still living without health insurance. There is too much at stake right now to elect another George W. Bush to the White House. And John McCain is just that. He has stated that the issue of economics is not something he's understood as well as he should. He does not support reproductive rights for women, increased veteran's benefits and ending the war in Iraq. There is just no reason for Senator Clinton's supporters not to back Senator Obama.

How do you think the election will play itself out over the next four months, and how do you think the subject of race will continue to be a factor?
As we head toward November, I think the race will continue to be close--although I hope I am wrong. But this country likes tight races and I am afraid it will ultimately come down to which campaign turns out the most voters on Election Day. I want to believe that our country can see beyond race as a factor in voting for a Presidential candidate...that instead, a candidate's intellect, vision, political values and policies override any consideration of his skin color. But on some level, it would be naive to think that race will not be a factor. I do believe, however, that there is much less racism, sexism and homophobia among the younger generation and that we have come a very long way.

I find this exchange between Republican Presidential candidate John McCain and ABC's George Stephanopolous stunning. McCain's anti-gay adoptions flip-flop does not surprise me but what I find absolutely stunning is how inarticulate he is about it.

Scary.

Congratulations to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. The handsome gay marriage proponent tied the knot with actress/producer Jennifer Siebel on Saturday night. She has a recurring role on the NBC series "Life"

People.com reports that the guests at the wedding included Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her husband Paul, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, former eBay president Jeff Skoll, Sex and the City star Jason Lewis and Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain really struck my last good nerve when he said in a recent article that "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."

PFLAG, "disappointed and saddened by McCain's remarks jumped all over him with Executive Director Jody M. Huckaby saying, in part: "In a country where more than 125,000 children are waiting for foster parents, Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like."

"Love makes a family, but short-sighted positions like Senator McCain's can certainly tear families apart, too. Senator McCain's position is out of synch with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family."

McCain ends up looking really bad in this. So, of course, his director of communications Jill Hazelbaker sent out a statement of clarification which I don't think really helps much: "...He was not endorsing any federal legislation. McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

Why do Republican presidential candidates insist that gay people be second class citizens? John McCain has just motivated me to put a Barack Obama sign in my yard with his latest comment to the New York Times regarding gay adoption: "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."

Both parents? If a gay couple adopts a kid, the kid has BOTH parents. And why make these kinds of sweeping statements? We know there are a lot of screwed up kids out there who have a mother and father and terrific kids of a single parent or of a grandparent. It's about the love the kid gets, the attention, the opportunities etc.

I know some gay Republicans, some of them are cool people who I like. But how can any self-respecting gay person vote for this guy?

Mitt Romney, who spent so many millions of his own fortune in an effort to win the Repubican presidential nomination, still wants the VP spot. Predictably, his stance on equal rights for gays and lesbians remains boneheaded as he continues to back the military's discrimatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Here's what he said on CNN yesterday:

"I think particularly at a time of conflict, as we're experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be putting in place a major change in policy and trying to accommodate all of the adjustments that that would require. That's something which clearly we'll learn from the military and the people who are responsible for managing our troops down the road. But certainly now is not the time to make a change of that nature."

.

San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, has filed papers to form an exploratory committee for a potential gubernatorial bid in 2010. It would be so great to have a governor who has actually stood up for the equal rights of gays and lesbians.

Gavin is a Democrat best known for challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage in 2004 which led to the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the ban. He is just six months into his second and final term as mayor.

Besides his reputation as a same-sex marriage advocate, Newsom has won praise and imitators in other cities for programs to get homeless people into housing, according to the Associated Press. He has also been lauded for his commitment to social services, including the promotion of tap water over bottled water and the distribution of employer-subsidized health care for uninsured residents.

As I mentioned a few days ago, I'm still having some trouble transfering my unabashed enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. I even had a dream a few nights ago that I was consoling Hillary as I was helping her clean out dresser drawers. I have no idea what that meant.

So, while I deal with my issues, another Clinton survivor, Barbra Streisand, is moving on to Barack. Streisand confirmed this week that she is willing to help with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's campaign.

Streisand can raise an awful lot of money when she sings for someone - just ask Bill Clinton! So I'm sure the Obama campaign will be happy to have her as a fund raiser!

At last week's Love and Pride event at The Abbey, I had the chance to sit down and have a nice chat with Judy Shepard of the Matthew Shepard Foundation, named after her son who was beaten to death in a senseless hate crime. His remarkable mom has been a tireless advocate for hate crime laws and LGBT equal rights and everytime I see her, I just want to give her a giant hug for being such an inspiration.

Here is our conversation:

Q. Were you surprised at the Supreme Court ruling?
A. "You know, I was surprised. Maybe less surprised because it's California and they're forward thinking but I was surprised. And I think what happened in Massachusetts had a lot to do with that. Everybody thought it was going to fall off into the ocean when they okayed marraige and when it didn't, people were like, 'Well okay. This is their private business and that's great.'"

Q. In the days after the ruling, what is your meszsage to people?
A. "I want everyone to understand that marriage isn't a guarantee of everything. If we think it's going to answer all of our problems in the gay community, it isn't. We still have hate crime to deal with and all the other incremental things. This is not the end all be all, but it's a wonderful thing to have happen."

Q. The ballot initiative to again ban gay marriage just qualified for the November ballot so there's this big fight ahead. Do you think the climate is different from say eight years ago or four years ago?
A: Absolutely. Prop 22, it was hateful. I think if the opponents to this come back in with that same kind of message, it's going to look bad for them because it's a hateful message. Not allowing people to be together and take care of eacn other in a legal way, that's a hateful message.

Q. Do you think it's getting through to people that it's hateful?
A. I do, I really do. I think the more we see it, the more we recognize that it's just people who love each other and deserve to be together like everybody else. The thing that's lacking is federal benefits. I think it's going to have to be a national issue at some point in time. Unlike New York, not every state is going to say, 'Okay, you got married in California and now you move to Montana, you're still married. We've got to do something about that.

Q. What about the politicians? Do you find that anybody is getting any kind of courage toward equal (LGBT) rights. Hate crimes, 'Don;t Ask, Don't Tell,' marriage. Is anybody getting any kind of backbone or are they still waiting or someone else?
A: I think we;ve seen the backbone that's out there and then we still see the wishy-washy stuff going on. Who's going to vote against a hate crimes bill? Still, we didn't have the votes for it. I think that's appalling. Especially when the constituents are telling their representatives, 'We want this to happen." They're just not paying any attention to us."

Q. You're favor of transgendered people being included in the bill?
A. Yes. Included in everything. When it's removed from anything, it's not because of anything we do, it's what the actual representative do. We can lobby for that until the moon turns pink but it's ultimately up to them.

Q. Your thoughts on the upcoming presidential election. I can't imagine you;d be sad to see George Bush out of office. How have the past eight years been for you?
A. Oh, it;s been really hard for the community. I just personally feel like we've been sort of standing in the same place for eight years. I understand that at the grassroots level we've made great strides but at the federal level, we're still right where we started.pretty much. We've educated a lot of legislators and that's good. I'm looking forward to the next eight years."

Q. Where do you get all the energy?
A. I think Matt gives it to me.

My Daily News colleague Rick Orlov had an interesting tidbit in his must-read political column this week about Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villariagosa who rode in the LA Gay Pride Parade on Sunday.

Rick writes:

Officials across California are eagerly anticipating next week's date when gay marriages will be allowed. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is scheduled to be in Israel when the ban is lifted June 17, said he has taken the steps to allow him to perform weddings.

Before he can do so, however, Villaraigosa needs to fill out a certificate with the California Secretary of State's Office saying he plans to perform weddings.

It's an interesting time for those of us who backed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign which she officially suspended on Saturday. I strongly believe that she was the best person for the job, the smartest and the strongest and the person who would be most effective as president. But, she lost. Yesterday at the Gay Pride Festival in West Hollywood, there were all kinds of Barack Obama supporters out there handing out buttons and stickers and I gotta say, I'm not feeling it yet. Of course I will vote for him - of course - but I just hope my enthusiasm grows once I'm through processing Clinton's defeat. An Obama/Clinton ticket would most certainly help heal these wounds!

Anyway, Obama released a letter to the LGBT community over the weekend. You can read it in its entirety after the jump but here are highlights of his stance on the issues most important to us:

- As president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non- Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

- As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat samesex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

- I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

- I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The full test of Obama's statement is after the jump...

My biggest disaapointment in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that neither of them have had the guts to support same-sex marriage. As a gay person, this is the most important issue of all. So when the California Supreme Court ruling last month lifted the ban, neither of these candidates could change course.

The alternative newspaper LA Weekly has an article coming out this week focusing on Obama and the gay marriage issue. Here is a statement his campaign has released on the topic:

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

On the issue of constitutional amendments, Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal. That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida."

Gee, thanks.

Jim McGreevey is such a loser.

I've thought so since the day he resigned as New Jersey governor and declared himself "a gay American." He woulda stayed a closeted American had his hand not been forced and his book tour that followed was nauseating.

And now we have the bitter divorce trial of Jimbo and his dumb estranged wife Dina Matos McGreevey in which they are airing their considerable dirty laundry. The ex-guv said on the witness stand this week that he relies on his wealthy boyfriend, Mark O'Donnell, to help him pay alimony to his first ex-wife as well as his soon-to-be second ex-wife.

He's sure got a lot of ex-wives for a gay American.

McGreevey said in court: "Without Mark's... without these loans, I could not afford legal fees. They are crushing. I want to pay my child support. I want to fulfill my obligations. It's incredibly frustrating."

Poor Jimbo claims his only sources of income are an adjunct professorship and some consulting; he's also a seminary student. He has borrowed $250,000 in rent, taxes and legal bills from his boyfriend and he said it will take him "decades" to pay back his debts.

The crazy ex-couple has already agreed upon custody of their daughter Jacqueline. After the alimony issue is decided, the divorce trial will focus on McGreevey's homosexuality.

I don't know about you, but I'm still on cloud nine over last week's CA Supreme Court decision the legalizes gay marriage in our state. But we all know about the forces who are not happy about it. They will be fighting until the bitter end for a ballot initiative that would null and void the historic ruling.

That is why I was so happy to learn today that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest GLBT civil rights organization, has pledged an initial contribution of $500,000 to Equality for All to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that could possibly be on the November general election ballot in California. This is an addition to the $100,000 contribution the Human Rights Campaign made to Equality for All earlier this year.

HRC President Joe Solmonese said: "The California Supreme Court's decision is a victory for justice and fairness. But the fight for equality has just begun. With the $500,000 commitment to Equality for All today, HRC aims to ensure that California remains a state where every person has the opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams by being able to marry the person they love....The California Supreme Court did its job by siding with basic fairness. In November, we hope the voters of California do the same."