Today was a big day on the blogs. At least Senator Arlen Spector, a liberal senator from Pennsylvania, chose today to argue for the end of legislative discrimination against LGBT people in the U.S.

Then, on the same say, the Army Times publishes an interview with Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, who states that the army is ready to change policies when it comes to gays in the military. This, after Obama’s announcement at the HRC dinner that he intends to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

There is a little bit of Rosie the Riviter syndrome happening here. It is likely no surprise that the military wants to open its doors to more recruits at a time when enlistment numbers are low and the war we are fighting is not going so well. Obama has been asked to send more troops to Afghanistan and the next day, fourteen die in a helicopter crash.

Just like women in the World Wars, gays might be benefiting from dire circumstances.

That said, eliminating discrimination, even in the army, is important. If I had my way, the people I know wouldn’t be enlisting to fight a losing war in Afghanistan, to be sent out on multiple tours with ill-suited equipment and training. But I respect their right to do so. More important, those in the army already, who have already made that choice, should not be forced to live in hiding or risk their job.

But the arguments are old news. The point is that the U.S. might actually be desperate enough that gays in the military doesn’t sound like such a bad idea. Is this a good thing? I’m not sure. But it might have a positive lasting effect on the fight for equality.

It’s easy to forget that a politician is only as good as the services provided. Sure talking points, speechifying, acumen about nitty-gritty policy details all are worth something; however, any pol who doesn’t react quickly to the concerns of her constituents is not long for the gig.

Yesterday New York’s junior senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand held a Q&A at NYC’s LGBT Community Center. She was introduced by Lt. Daniel Choi, more about that later, and said a whole lot folks here would like, but it was her staff that earned my attention. A gentleman asked the senator about the recent decision not to have living increases for Social Security in 2010. The questioner also wondered what Gillibrand was going to do to help gay and lesbian seniors. The senator admitted she didn’t know much about the topic, but asked him to help her and call her office. When the event ended, one of her aides found him and gave him cards with phone numbers. In fact, her aides spent all of their time after the event  finding people who asked questions, taking names and numbers. I’m loathe to make predictions, but if Gillibrand and her team keep paying attention to these small details she will be hard to beat in 2012.

Choi introduced her and his words were a rousing defense of the senator and not so subtle critique of the Commander-in-Chief.

“Senator Gillibrand is more than a fierce advocate,” Choi said.

No one in the 200 plus audience seemed to disagree with this comparison, but Gillibrand is no political novice or blustery advocate. In her words, she noted President Obama’s commitment to gay rights and didn’t take Choi’s bait.

The centerpiece of her speech focused on the upcoming Senate hearings on DADT. The senator is convinced the policy needs to end, but thinks the hearing will bring around enough senators (60) so that a repeal will be filibuster proof.

“Convincing the handful of senators who are undecided is our greatest challenge,” she said.

Andrew Sullivan needs no support from me. And from what little I know about the man he would be dismissive of it. Sully has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him as either unthinking or a wannabe destroyer of American life (remember how ballistic he went when anyone questioned the Iraq War?). With that said, please pay attention to  an email sent to him yesterday.

Sullivan has been hammering away at the White House for its lack of action on DADT. Yes there are moments when his pen can go over the top (heck, even he will cop to that), but giving President Obama grief for not doing enough on DADT is honorable work. Even Obama admitted as much when he spoke to HRC Saturday night. Well according to an emailer, Sullivan’s stand on the matter is “embarrassing”  because the White House has more pressing issues.

This is a position worth discussing, but the emailer (called from here on in as smug straight person, SSP) isn’t concerned about conversation. Instead he just wants to say what a fag Sullivan is.

“Geez, you’re a princess. Gay people account for what? 9% of the population? That much? Heterosexual sex is the ability to replicate consciousness. All wonders of the universe are created by the union of sperm and egg. The sperm and the egg have created everything.”

Not the “straight coupling is so transcendent” line! I wonder does the emailer have this same thought when his wife goes down on him before she takes their kids to school? Or maybe when he’s begging to do her in the booty? Could be this thought passes his mind when he is lusting over some television tart. Nothing against straight sex but let’s be fair here: when they go at it, most heterosexuals are not looking to “replicate consciousness.”

While opposite sex atteraction is a union of the gods, gay love is…wait for it….”a cross” and SSP wants Sullivan to bear his silently and recognize how his gayness keeps him away from the higher love of his straight peers. I’m assuming that search for the ethereal  is why Gov. Mark Sanford went to Argentina so many times.

Oh, but SSP is not done. He has one more flourish.

“Go suck a dick, and suck it up, sweetheart.”

There it is. That straight conceit. The card too many heterosexuals play when they need to put us in our place for our uppity behavior. Take care of their churches, serve in the military, teach their children, clean their houses, show compassion to their sick and dying, pay taxes, entertain them, be their neighbors, but no sounds about rights or our relationships. Just suck dick. That’s all we are good for.

In what seems to be a PR move to augment his speech on Saturday, the White House told The Advocate the Obama administration is in talks with Sen. Joseph Lieberman to come up with ways to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“On ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ this administration is talking directly to the Hill — we are in direct discussions with Senator Lieberman,” said John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management.

When President Obama spoke to the HRC this past Saturday (I’m still confused why the crowd lost its mind), he was pretty explicit about putting DADT in the dustbin of history. That’s been said many a time before, so my doubt meter is still high. However, you have to give the White House props for turning to Lieberman. He is no Obama fan and would have been happier if his friend, Sen. John McCain, was Commander-in-Chief. Republicans are  madly in love with the Nutmeg State senator (every time Fox’s Sean Hannity mentions the guy’s  name his eyes go wide with flaming love), and the chance of bipartisan support increases with Lieberman as the point person. Also, as reported by the senator’s spokesperson, Lieberman opposes the policy.

“Senator Lieberman has had discussions with representatives of the Administration and others on the best way to reverse this policy, which he has opposed since it was first proposed in 1993,” said Marshall Wittmann, Lieberman’s press secretary.

This glimmer of news is important but until DADT is no more, let there be no rest. So send a letter or two to your representatives.

PS: If you are of the praying kind, please send them to Jack Price and his family. Another victim of anti-gay violence.

I don’t mean to pile on Cleve Jones, the organizer for the National Equality March, but there are times when he talks and its easy to wonder if he likes Mary Jane a bit too much. In a recent interview he says two things that are rather naive and dismissive of local organizers who are doing important grunt work.

When asked what issues the October 11 march will address, here is Mr. Jones:

“We want decisive, unequivocal action from the president, Congress and the United States Supreme Court to ensure equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, period.”

What the devil does that mean? Repeal of DOMA and DADT? Gay marriage in all 50 states (good luck with that!). Civil rights laws for gays and lesbians? Can the man be more vague? And last time I checked the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to ensure some political outcome. Its role is only to make meaning from the laws (and if you look at the history of the Court, minus the past 50 years, its a rather conservative institution, but that is for another time).

Jones also seems to have a disdain for the daily work done by locals. You know those folk you call when the police do some shady stuff or you get beat down for having the gall to think you can walk the streets at night.

” We who are organizing the march are tired of a state-by-state, city-by-city struggle. It certainly has produced victories, but these victories are incomplete and impermanent.”

Sure, but can we get our fair due of the freedom pie by ignoring  the local activists who will be on the ground when the rally stage is put away? Former 365 blogger Pauline Park wonders if all of the focus on a national movement will dry up much needed funds for organizations who are the lifeblood for the movement Jones wants.

“What the march will do is divert scarce resources from those state and local organizations doing the real work of the movement just at a moment when they most need resources because of the recession. In fact, a lot of state and local organizations already have events planned for Oct 11 — which is National Coming Out Day — and so the scheduling of this march on that day will force many of those organizations to choose between continuing to organize events in their home communities or send members to Washington.”

I know the complaints. “Why can’t gays and lesbians support something without being so critical?” “If this march is not a success our rights will be taken away.” “Every gay and lesbian needs to support this march. If not you are traitor.”  “Support this march or get out of the way.” Phooey to all of that.

Movements are weak if they can’t stand up to sturdy and fair critique. Sure too many comments about Jones  and the march are silly and those statements need to be taken for what they are: bitter mess by bitter people. However, freedom struggles get no where if there isn’t a hard question every now and then.

None of this means you shouldn’t go to DC this weekend, and if you read it like that get some glasses. Please. Yet ask yourself, and the folk organizing this thing, how do they plan on spreading a national movement if they don’t support the ground troops?

No one here needs to be convinced, at least I don’t think so, but now an article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal says its time to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Air Force Colonel Om Prakash, who works in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, wrote the essay for Joint Force Quarterly; he studied the topic as a student at the National Defense University and his findings give no wiggle room for those who still believe in DADT.

“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ the colonel writes. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’

It would be easy to be dismissive of Prakash’s article, but that would be foolhardy. It wasn’t published in a “gay rag.” While you might not see Joint Force Quarterly next to Out or GQ, it is the reading material of military personnel who make policy. Secondly Colonel Prakash knows the deal. He admits getting rid of the gay ban will cause issues in some units, and violence to some gay and lesbian soldiers. However, like all military problems, one word will be key: leadership.

“No doubt there will be cases where units will become dysfunctional, just as there are today among heterosexual leaders. Intervention will be required; such units must be dealt with just as they are today – in a prompt and constructive fashion.’’

“A prompt and constructive fashion.” Hopefully a general will pass this article along to the Obama White House.

I have to admit, I always thought that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, while a repressive and horrific policy, served as a kind of escape hatch for U.S. soldiers. If you are gay and in the military and they are about to send you out on your third tour in a row to fight a war that is, by all accounts, unwinnable you can come out of the closet. According to military policy, they have to discharge you.

Well, Private Bethany Smith tried that. Specifically, she was outed as a lesbian, harassed extensively and then requested to be discharged under DADT. She was on the verge of being sent to Afghanistan and the military decided to delay her discharge until after her deployment.

So much for the escape hatch.

So Private Smith came to Canada and asked the government to protect her. In the first hearing, her request was denied, but she is appealing. The problem is that Canada has a pretty bad track record when it comes to giving U.S. soldiers asylum. According the refugee laws, their court would have to essentially find fault with the United States court martial system in order to grant Smith asylum.

Not likely when the two countries are such good friends.

So I am left disappointed. Smith, after serious harassment and targetted violence because of her sexual orientation, is not even allowed to use the silver lining DADT supposedly provided.

And Canada, while better about gays in the military, is not likely to protect her from the court martial expected for her desertion.

This is a good story to end the work week on. Yeah I know it’s not gay news related, but if you get prissy your heart is colder than those yahoos at Westboro Baptist “Church.” Please go get some help. Like today. Remember Damon Weaver? The precocious kid reporter from Florida who was looking for an interview with President Obama? Well he got it last night.

Weaver, Pahokee’s favorite son, sat down for 10 minutes  with Obama in the White House Diplomatic Room. The interview ranged from the serious (give Weaver props for asking about bullying and violence in our schools) to the silly. Damon would like french fries served at every school lunch (not too outlandish really).

This morning the 11 year old boy will be hitting the morning shows on CNN and MSNBC. And I hear talk of him holding a press conference on the South Lawn.

Don’t want to be too cynical (yeah I do) but this feel good story comes at a perfect time for the White House. Obama will be in Montana today  for a town hall meeting on health insurance and if it gets hot, the White House can just point to Damon and the press will lose its mind. This kid is catnip. Remember during the inauguration festivities when  ABC News’ Diane Sawyer almost adopted him?

For the prissy ones already banging at the keyboard about how their grand  gay day has been ruined forevah, here is something you’ll like. While Damon was all respectful to his interviewee, a former president was taken to the woodshed for DADT and DOMA. Blogger Lane Hudson, who exposed Mark Foley for the creep he is, was listening to Bill Clinton at the Netroots Nation conference and had enough. Hudson  stood up and interrupted the Big Dog, and gave him grief for DADT and DOMA.

Two things stand out: apparently some in the audience booed Hudson and some old lady told him to leave. Progressives really hate it when you bring up stuff they don’t want to deal with. Second, part of Clinton’s response is instructive.

“You wanna talk about ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting some support in the congress. Now, that’s the truth.”

For six months I’ve been reading how President Obama hasn’t done squat for the gay community. Heck I’ve written some the stuff myself. All fair. All fair. Yet presidential leadership does not operate in a vacuum. It would be nice if politicians did the right thing, but it’s naive to think a president is going to put his/her toe in something without cover. Even Damon knows that! What did Franklin D.  Roosevelt say?

“I agree with you, I want to do it; now make me do it.”

RIP Les Paul.

Many of those in attendance at the event spoke out against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Many revealed how they have personally been affected by the bill.

“If there was no ban and I were allowed to openly serve, I wouldn’t have had any of those extra stressors, I wouldn’t have had any of those extra worries, and I would have re-enlisted,” said former US Navy officer Steven Lorandos.

Several local politicians came out to also support the event and spoke out against DADT as well.

“I just came back from Iraq and I wasn’t able to see black, white, female, male gay or lesbian soldiers. They were all Americans fighting for us. And it is extraordinary that anyone would not want to let them serve and help our country,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, (D) Chicago.

Chicago’s 7 News reported that “the United States military has more than 65,000 gay members in active service.” House Resolution 1283 has been created by DADT opponents to ask Obama to repeal the bill.

Watch the full 7 News report here.

Spend anytime reading the comment sections on gay political sites and there is lots of vitriol for President Barack Obama. From DOMA to DADT, there is a palpable sense the Obama administration has turned its back to the  LGBT community. That is a fair reading few would dispute, even those who continue to support the White House. However, the Palm Center released a paper arguing DADT is still around because of conscious choices by gay activists.

Called “Self-Inflicted Wounds”, the report argues when chatter for Obama to sign a executive directive to get rid of DADT was at its peak,  “a network of gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and politicos worked to derail the possibility of a suspension of the ban.” Aaron Belkin, the paper’s author, makes the case that instead of focusing on a two tier attack, pushing  the president and congress, the “gay and gay-friendly activists journalists and politicos” focused their attention solely on the legislative side of the DADT debate.

No names are listed but if you remember reporter Jason Bellini, in a Daily Beast video, hinted the Human Rights Campaign might have informed the White House the military ban should be worked on last, after the hate crimes bill (HRC head Joe Solmonese vigorously denied  the implications of Bellini’s reporting).

Belkin’s paper will get a lot of press, as it should. Hopefully it will also engender a conversation about the nature of leadership. Maybe it’s time for us to recognize that a diverse group such as the “gay community” is cannot put all of its eggs in a leadership basket. Some who we think speak for the community are essentially on the hunt for access to power. There is nothing wrong with that, but if you are looking for change you might need to look beyond groups like HRC.