Homophobia

Six minutes of Cynthia:

Todd Akin is really mad that military chaplains can perform marriage ceremonies they choose to perform, so long as said ceremonies are legal under state and local laws.  

You might think this is a commonsense policy, and that the Pentagon has bigger things to worry about than which marriages Akin finds too icky to contemplate. But as everyone knows, the last people on earth God- and freedom-loving patriots like Todd Akin hould allow to make their own decisions about matters that have nothing to do with Todd Akin are clergy types and members of the military.  

From Right Wing Watch:  "Yesterday, [Vicky] Hartzler addressed Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit in Washington on why young people should oppose marriage equality. Joined by Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, Hartzler compared gay marriage to polygamy and incest, and later argued that we shouldn’t give equal marriage rights to gay couples just as 'it’s not a right of a three-year old to drive a car.'"

Akin with fellow culture warrior, Cynthia Davis

Rep. Todd Akin is making news today with his opposition to the recent decision by the Navy to allow its chaplains the freedom to perform gay marriages on Navy bases if they so choose, if that's allowed by local and state laws.

Akin says such a decision -- allowing clergy to perform ceremonies in accordance with local laws and their respective faiths -- violates the Defense of Marriage Act.  The hippies at the Pentagon, however, say this is nonsense.   As reported by the Navy Times:

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Responding to questions about the law and the new policy in an email, Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez wrote: “DOMA does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation. Chaplains are authorized to perform religious ceremonies consistent with the practices of the chaplain’s faith group in chapels on military installations.”

The Keen News Service and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network have coverage of today's Congressional hearing on the implementation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal that's really worth checking out. In short, "the military's repeal of its longstanding 'don’t ask, don’t tell' policy is not facing resistance from troops and is on track to take full effect this fall as planned."

But Vicky Hartzler, who sits on the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, wasn't all that interested in facts, the insight from experts who testified before the subcommittee and the clear opinion of actual service members.  She just finds the whole idea of repealing DADT icky. 

According to tweets from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Hartzler was "obsessed" with talking about why shower facilities are segregated by gender, but not by sexual orientation.  And Hartzler told the committee she believes 10% of the military will leave because of the decision to repeal DADT.

UPDATE: Here's video from ThinkProgress: 

Feel the hate

Rep. Vicky Hartlzer isn't sure that reinstating a discriminatory, unnecessary and unpopular "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is enough to fully capture her disgust with gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members.  Beyond just reinstating the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rules, she'd also like the Pentagon to think about an "Ask, Separate Housing" plan.

After a 10-month Pentagon study found more than two-thirds of service members do not object to serving alongside openly gay soldiers, President Obama signed a defense bill that included ending the practice of expelling gay service members.

Hartzler - whose 4th Congressional District includes Whiteman Air Force Base and the Army's Fort Leonard Wood - told Fitzpatrick she and other Republicans oppose the change.

"I can tell you people on the committee, who are my side of the aisle, think it's very ill-advised and do not support that," Hartzler said, and are "pushing back."

Hartzler said that during a hearing with military brass she asked why, because separate housing exists for male and female troops, gays are not housed separately, too. She said a general, she did not know which, responded first with a gurgling-type noise before answering, "We're recruiting professionals."'

Hartzler's description led some in the crowd to laugh.

"So we have some work to do there," she said. "We're going to keep advancing the cause."

Laughter may not be the appropriate response here.  Unless it's one of those awkward, nervous laughs that comes when someone asks you if you're embarrassed by the person who represents you and your community in Washington.

In Missouri, you can lose your job because you're gay and your employer finds that just a little too icky.  Or you can be evicted from your apartment because you're gay.

Crazy, right?

Fortunately, Rep. Stephen Webber (D-Columbia) and Sen. Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City) are once again trying to right this wrong in Missouri law.  Their bills (HB477 and SB239, respectively) would prohibit discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation.    

This isn't the first time they've tried to set things right, leaving one to wonder why conservative leaders in both chambers are so intent on protecting Missourians' right to discriminate against people because of who they are or who they love.    The good news is that last year's bill went farther than previous efforts, and HB477 is co-sponsored by 48 fellow Representatives.

A statement from Webber released last week about his bill is pasted below the jump. 

Rep. Todd Akin continues to impress. Yesterday of Fox News, Akin shared his rather fascinating understanding of the existing DADT policy.

If people are gay, they can serve in the military now. It's just that they can't allow their gayness to get in the way of getting the mission done.

Um, no.  But watch the whole interview and judge for yourself.

Note that Akin completely misrepresents the results of the Pentagon's study, and makes the serious charge that the Defense Department "doctored around" with their data that jeopardizes human lives in the service of a "social statement." 

Crazy Ed Martin emailed supporters this morning to complain about a number of federal issues, including this weekend's bipartisan Senate vote to end the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  Martin, as you might have guessed, opposes the move. What you may not have known is that Martin has his pulse on the LGBT community.  Here is his brilliant defense of continued discrimination:

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a reasonable compromise policy in which the military has been directed to not “hunt” homosexuals and those who were gay have been asked to keep their private lives private. I believe the overwhelming majority of servicemen and women who are gay accept that the mission is more important than their personal life and are satisfied by the bargain. Over 80% of honorable discharges under DADT have been initiated by a service member breaking their part of the agreement by making their sexual orientation a matter of unit discipline.

Senator McCaskill and Congressman Carnahan may have secured for themselves the accolades of the left by ignoring the concerns of our combat troops but they have introduced a potentially disruptive variable into the volatile mix of a military in a protracted war.  I hope my grave concerns are never realized, but I fear the self-righteous indulgence of these thoughtelss [sic] leftists will have awful consequences.

Yowsa.

Tweeted this morning by Congresswoman-elect Vicky Hartzler:

Never mind that 77% of Americans think members of the military should be able to serve open and honestly, that more than 70% of respondents in the Pentagon's study on DADT said that repealing the discriminatory policy would have "positive, mixed or nonexistent" effects, or that the Pentagon says that ending the policy will "not harm long-term military effectiveness."

-------------------

Also check out St. Louis Activist Hub's coverage of Ed Martin's spasm of homophobia this weekend. 

The Daily Star Journal reports that Rep. Denny Hoskins (R-Warrensburg) "sought to distance himself" from the robocalls sent by the House Republican Campaign Committee on his behalf.  "I did not pay for, approve or have any knowledge of the robocall, nor do I condone its message," Hoskins said. 

Just tweeted by the News-Leader's Roseann Moring:

One more post about Sunday night's debate between Ed Martin, Russ Carnahan and Nick Ivanovich.  The candidates were asked to share their stances on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policies."  As you can see in this video from Hotflash at Show Me Progress, Carnahan lays out a clear response to why he supports repealing DADT. 

And then, as you'll see, Martin stands up and reveals his true character:

Picking up at the 0:48 mark in the clip:

MARTIN: I'm here for you.  Translation: Congressman Carnahan supports gay marriage.  He doesn't care what Missourians think, or what their positions are.  That's what he thinks.  So, let me ... [audience grumbles]

MODERATOR: [Inaudible] What's your position on what's [inaudible]?

MARTIN: I'm getting there, I'm getting there. So, I'm sure you're going to stop the time right, so we can answer?  The fact is, this is social engineering by Nancy Pelosi and the far left who wanna do something that hasn't been done in our military. That is, allow the social engineers to go in an decide how people are supposed to function....

Classy stuff!  And not true. Most Americans support allowing gay men and women to serve openly.  Repealing DADT is not "social engineering by Nancy Pelosi and the far left" 

Show Me No Hate posted on Martin's cynical switcheroo on Wednesday. 

Never ones to let a public policy debate in another state go to waste, former State Senator John Loudon and corporate tea party personality Gina Loudon are hoppin' mad about yesterday's court ruling about California's Prop 8.  Gina is promoting a National Organization for Marriage rally in Clayton tomorrow, and says the Prop 8 ruling is one "big gay mistake" perpetrated by "the militant left." Silly you for thinking those socialist hordes were a bunch of peace-loving hippies.  She's also convinced that the 'rumors' regarding the judge's sexuality undermine his ability to think clearly about the law (court decisions about marriage are generally left to eunuchs, I'm told).

Not be outdone, John says if you want people to be treated equally under the law you should just move to someplace gay like Iowa:

If you want gay marriage, keep the federal government out of it. Move to a State of your choosing, and live happily gayly married ever after. This crap of you leftists getting one judge to make laws really irritates the heck out of people who believe in the rule of law. It is disgusting that you people cannot learn from the past. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You leave no choice but a US Constitutional Amendment.

A long-time Fired Up! reader asks a good question about this passage in Jon Rust's inadequate response to the 'repugnant' letter he published about Tommy Sowers from Josh Bill, former chief of staff to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson:

The second point -- the innuendo -- is unfair and inappropriate. I will admit: I don't see that sexual orientation has anything to do with whether a person is qualified for Congress. The same is true about race, sex, religion or national background. Each of these items is part of an individual's identity, but in themselves they are basically meaningless. Whether a person is Sikh, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Mormon or atheist, the more important characteristics are their governing philosophy, wisdom, integrity and work ethic.

My guess is that I may be a minority in this position, however, especially in the 8th District, which is what makes the paid election letter repugnant.

Is it really Rust's position that a majority of Eighth District voters are bigots as he indicates in here?  That most of his readers are more concerned about "sexual orientation...race, sex, religion or national background" than candidates' "governing philosophy, wisdom, integrity and work ethic"?   I hope he's wrong. 

Michael Bersin makes a good point about Jon Rust's response to the gay-baiting letter he printed from Josh Bill, former chief of staff to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson.  What does Rust mean when he writes, "people close to the Emerson campaign crossed the line in mudslinging too" (emphasis added)?  Rust offers no examples what the Tommy Sowers campaign has done to justify this suggestion that both camps have been equally slimy. 

Also: Several readers have wondered if Rust would be willing to print a similar letter speculating about the sexuality of a Republican candidate based on (1) his or her marital status or (2) the fact that he or she patronized a business that doesn't have a problem serving gay people.

Southeast Missourian publisher Jon K. Rust responds to the gross letter from Josh Bill noted below, but without actually naming Bill's name.  He's just "a writer who once worked for Emerson's husband" in Rust's response.

This week, people close to the Emerson campaign crossed the line in mudslinging too. In a paid election letter to this newspaper, a writer who once worked for Emerson's husband called into question Sowers' sexuality. The innuendo used was repugnant...

My guess is that I may be a minority in this position [not caring about a Congressional candidate's sexual orientation], however, especially in the 8th District, which is what makes the paid election letter repugnant. The innuendo is artfully done and clearly intentional. And it is the type of political tactic that is disgraceful, because it's not about what is true or not, it's about scoring a campaign point regardless of the truth.

The Southeast Missouri has published a disgusting letter to the editor from Josh Bill, former chief of staff to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson and former mayor of Sikeston. The letter, headlined "Questions about Tommy Sowers," expresses concern that Tommy Sowers' website "doesn't even say how old he is or if he's single or married" (read: Is he gay?).  He also talks at length about a recent Sowers fundraiser in Washington, DC that Bill says was held in "the notorious U Street corridor of D.C.," apparently "famous for the homosexual community and notorious for everyone else."   As evidence (I'm using that term loosely), Bill points to a website that describes Local 16, the location of Sowers' fundraiser, as one of DC's "gay clubs and bars."

I wouldn't be bothered a bit if a candidate happened to hold an event at a gay bar, any more than I'd care if a candidate happened to be gay, lesbian, transgendered or straight.  Quaint questions like, "How might a person vote?" generally guide my personal candidate selection process.

Josh Bill obviously sees things differently. The intention of the letter is obvious, and it's hard to understand why the Southeast Missourian decided to publish it.  (Note that the letter that this isn't labeled as one of the paper's user-submitted stories where we often see political press releases.) UPDATE: The paper's publisher has clarified that Bill paid to have the  letter printed.

But even in Bill's narrow worldview, his letter and accusations have problems.

Who knew?  Watch Todd Akin freak out about an upcoming vote on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy here. 

Repealing DADT would "betray" his children Akin says, embarrass George Washington, and is only being considered to "tickle the fancies of a very vocal but very small minority for political purposes."

The 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan military veterans, 70% of all Americans and 60% of Republicans who support a policy change may be surprised to learn that they consistute a "very small minority" of the American public.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) launched a new “Stories from the Frontlines" project yesterday as part of their larger effort to pressure the White House and Congress to end the federal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT) policy.  The campaign is intended to ramp up pressure before President Obama issues his defense budget recommendations this year, and before the Defense Authorization bill is debated in Congress. 

Every day this week, the organization will release an open letter at www.sldn.org/letters from a person impacted by the existing discriminatory policy. 

Today's letter is from Captain Joan Darrah, USN (Ret.), yesterday's was from Former Air Force Major Mike Almy.  Darrah writes:

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Joan Darrah and I served in silence under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) for almost two decades.  I share my personal story with you as we’re at a critical point in the fight to repeal this discriminatory law.