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.

If you normally read my pieces here and roll your eyes at their effusiveness that borders on the cloying, let me apologize right up front. I’m probably going to piss you off today.

Everyone else, just follow along.

I had a lot on my mind this weekend, so today is mostly about loose ends, a little bit of a lot of things, piecemeal, take it how you will.

The ex-boyfriend finally moved out of the apartment this weekend. We’d been co-habitating for two months while we figured out what came next. More conspicuous to me than the noticeable absence of Nathan is the noticeable absence of Nathan’s stuff — an empty closet, pictures off the walls, a computer desk gone, a clock missing on the bedside table. Those spaces seem more glaring, more sad than the space where he isn’t. It’s easy to forget that our relationships aren’t just between us, but they’re an accumulation of spaces, spaces we fill with things, spaces we mingle together. And when someone goes, they leave all these blank spaces behind, shadow lives.

But life isn’t all shadow. While the ex-boyfriend was packing up, I took a day trip to New Orleans to spend some time with Marc, my new beau (I guess I can call him that, here’s hoping he doesn’t read this and raises an eyebrow at the suggestion). You ever meet someone who, almost immediately, feels as though they’ve been in your life for years? Marc feels like that. It’s a delight, really. Our dates have been epic in length, (you could watch Wagner’s Ring Cycle during each of our three dates with time to get through all three Lord of the Rings movies as a chaser,) but they’ve been wonderfully comfortable and lived-in, in a way that’s not a complaint. Although, our immediate comfortable connection has made more than one person accuse of being just like lesbians. Which made me laugh. (And please don’t barrage me with “gay guys always hate on lesbians” comments. I’m on your side. I think commitment is sexy as hell.) Sometimes, our stereotypes are good, no?

Marc and I listened to Obama’s HRC speech on Sirius radio, and I have to say, it ticked me off. I got very tired of hearing all the thunderous applause at what amounted to this; ‘Hey gays, I know the things you want, and I’m telling you I want them, too. I’m just not going to tell you when, where, or how you’re going to get them.” I’m bored with the dangling carrot, and I’m tired of it being good enough for our community. Yes, on paper, Obama’s a good boyfriend, but doesn’t it feel a little like we’re always snuggling with him on the couch, telling him how much we want to turn this relationship into something serious, and he’s saying, “Oh yeah, baby, I agree, I do too, just not right now, let’s just enjoy hat we have right here.” I deserve a better boyfriend, one who not only tells me loves me, but SHOWS me. Come on Obama. We’re ready for marriage (or haven’t you noticed?) Step up to the plate, okay?

I found a quote this morning that I’m tacking up in my cubicle: “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” Goethe. It’s easy to get caught up in the talk, the endless and labyrinthine debates and discussions about our key issues, but the talk only gets us so far. Bullhorns and signs and blogs (although I love blogs, mind you, don’t wanna anger my web Mom and Dad) are terrific, but they only go so far. Change doesn’t really happen with Big Symbolic Gestures. It takes place in miniature, in small steps, in putting your boyfriend’s picture up on your desk at work, in being out to your family, in correcting someone who assumes you’re straight, in calling someone out for saying something negative about gay people. Yes, we can feel as though change comes when we all band together and shout for equality, but the bigger change, the lasting change, comes in increments, in small steps, in what happens between you and another person. We should focus more of our energy on that change, on what we can do to make that change happen. Eye on the big prize, hands down in the muck and mire.

Favorite moment of the weekend: Marc and I visiting his friend, Wedon, watching Wanda Sykes’ HBO stand-up special. Marc, cuddled up next to me on the couch, turns his head once it’s over and says, “Baby, you tired? If you want to go we can.” That term of endearment was a surprise and arrived unexpectedly. And while I, of course, found it totally adorable, I was also struck by the ordinariness of the moment, the reminder that this life, this moment, was no different than the lives of millions of other couples, gay and straight, that no matter how different we feel and how much we’re demonized in the public discourse, we’re always occupying beautiful, perfect and ordinary lives. We’re not going to indoctrinate children or bring down Western civilization or destroy Jesus or kill America. We’re just someone’s Baby, someone’s Boo, someone’s Honey.

Not as sexy as annihilating the world, but it’ll do.

This Saturday, President Obama will be the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Campaign’s big DC fundraiser. As the largest gay rights fundraiser in the U.S., it’s a big deal to score a personality like the President. But his presence has many members of the LGBT community worried. Here’s a guy who has done virtually nothing for gay rights since his election. What can he possibly say?

I’m sure his speechwriters have cooked up something special for the night, but I’ve got a few ideas of my own. I’ve written a little speech for the beloved President – the kind of speech we wish the man would give, just once.

Tonight is a night to celebrate the Human Rights Campaign – the work they have done, tireless, well organized, well executed work, to promote the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in this country. It’s also a night to celebrate all of you, the people who donate their money and time to help make this country a more equal and just society.

But it is also a serious night, a night to reflect on where we have been and, more importantly, a night to plan and commit to where we are going.

I have a plan and I am ready for that commitment.

I understand that, in the face of the economic crisis facing us at home, the military crisis facing us abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan and the environmental crisis facing the international community, there is a very real struggle for basic human rights engaged in everyday by LGBT people in the United States.

This struggle is not overshadowed by the big news issues. It is not lessened by them. It is a constant and painful inequality. I know something about this kind of discrimination. My family knows something about this kind of discrimination.

And so, I do not stand before you tonight with excuses for the delays in Washington, for the setbacks and political conflicts that have crippled many important equality initiatives and stalled others.

I am here tonight because my administration is committed to full equality for LGBT people in this country. I pledged that commitment early in the campaign and have not swayed from that position.

I believe in the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the passage of inclusive immigration reform and the widespread protection of LGBT employees from retribution for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I believe in hate crimes legislation that protects Americans from homophobia as well as racism.

And here’s what I’m going to do to make the things I believe in, a reality.

Within one year, by November 2010, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform. This immigration package will include spousal sponsorship for same-sex couples in a committed relationship. Immigration reform is a priority for my administration and no reform package will be complete without this provision for the unification of American families thus far separated by discriminatory immigration policies.

Within six months, by April 2010, we will introduce a bill repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. When we ask so much of our troops, send them back for repeat tours, ask them to fight in harsh conditions so far from home, we must support their right to be open with their colleagues and superiors. We simply cannot afford to lose anymore good people from our military simply because of their sexual orientation.

As we speak, members of Congress are mobilizing around an inclusive hate crimes bill. That is a success that is imminent and my administration pushed to include the Matthew Shepard Act in the defense bill before Congress. We will push to get it passed.

These campaigns will not happen without roadblocks. Sometimes it will seem like we are moving backwards. We have already seen this with Proposition 8 in California and the proposed Proposition 1 in Maine.

But, the United States of America is a community of people from many different countries and many different cultures. It is a nation that vibrates with diversity and rises from its people’s differences as much as their shared experiences.

We are ready for progress. We are ready for equality. We, together, are going to make that equality happen.

Orly Taitz, the lawyer and self-appointed mother of the birther movement was chastized by a judge yesterday for bringing a frivilous lawsuit challenging the birth certificate of President Obama. It’s true, the lawsuit had no evidence and no one thinks it has any chance of success.

But what if they won?

Maybe then we would have to look at the archaic rule that requires every President to be born in the United States.

Perhaps, way back when, we thought that loyalty had something to do with birth. Specifically, British born subjects might be more inclined to support the monarchy than their fellow Americans. But these days, with Americans increasingly from first or second generation immigrant families, it makes little sense to base the most important election rules on birthright.

I don’t agree with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but  can one really claim that he doesn’t love the United States?

More importantly, many countries now have laws against discriminating on the basis of citizenship. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship. Canadian law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship.

We have to ask ourselves, if the birthers were successful and Obama was really born in Indonesia, or Afghanistan for that matter, would he be a worse President?

This time, Obama has some important statements to appease the gay community: “With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.”

Or: “Unlike the intervenors here, the government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in “creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents” or that the government’s interest in “responsible procreation” justifies Congress’s decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman…the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality.”

But then the brief does something really dangerous. It argues that DOMA should be upheld because the government has a rational interest in staying out of the debate for convenience sake. It states:

“Courts have held that challenges to DOMA are subject to rational basis review. Under that deferential standard of review, this Court should find that Congress could reasonably have concluded that there is a legitimate government interest in maintaining the status quo regarding the distribution of federal benefits in the face of serious and fluid policy differences in and among the states. …Under rational basis review, Congress can reasonably take the view that it wishes to wait to see how these issues are resolved at the state level before extending federal benefits to marriages that were not recognized in any state when Congress tied eligibility for those benefits to marital status.”

This sets a dangerous precedent. Traditionally, even the weakest kind of constitutional review, rational basis – has not permitted administrative convenience to justify discrimination. If it did, then every law, no matter how offensive, would be upheld because change just costs too much money and creates too many problems. Just think of all the backlog giving women the vote must have created.

As it stands now, this prohibition against using administrative convenience as a reason to continue discrimination against LGBT people is about all the constitutional protection gay Americans have.

If the Obama administration’s argument in this new bried is accepted, we might lose even that paltry prize.

WASHINGTON - JULY 20: U.S. President Barack Obama (L) meets with healthcare providers at Children's National Medical Center July 20, 2009 in Washington, DC. According to reports, Obama vowed to press ahead with his healthcare reform legislation in the face of GOP criticism. (Photo by Martin H. Simon-Pool/Getty Images)

Canadians are accused of moral superiority a lot of the time. It’s obnoxious, really, the way many of us pretend to come from the land of honey and gold when talking to Americans (never mind that our Prime Minister is more conservative than the middle of the road President in the U.S.). But there is one arena where it’s hard to argue against a little Canadian smugness: health care.

I’ve had knee surgery in both countriesand spent my life visiting doctors and hospitals in Canada and using clinics in the United States. I’ve had health insurance in the U.S. and dealt with waitlists in Canada and I can tell you that, at the end of it all, my health card – issued by the Canadian government – is the most valuable thing I own.

So, when Obama vowed to take on health insurance companies I was skeptical, but excited. Then it looked like he was going to increase taxes to create a publicly funded health insurance option and I got a little excited (Canadians who make more than $60,000 per year, on average, pay five percent more in taxes on personal income than their American counterparts). And finally, the House Democrats proposed legally mandating businesses with more than $250,000 on their payroll to provide health insurance to their employees.

But then things got messy- townhalls were disrupted, death threats abounded and too many images of Obama looking like Hitler surfaced.

And now staunchly liberal Senators, like Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), are looking to push through any kind of health care reform even if it doesn’t include a public option.

This matters to the LGBT community. My general practitioner in Toronto works at one of the premier HIV clinics in the country. While she saw me once a year to make sure I was eating my wheaties, she also treats a large population of poor or homeless individuals who are HIV+. She encourages her patients to get tested, she screens them for aggravating infections, she educates them about safer sex, safe drug use and other methods to prevent the spread of HIV.

Her clinic is also located very near the LGBT neighborhood -  a gathering place for LGBT youth who have been kicked out of their homes and have nowhere else to go. They can also walk into the clinic, get screened for STDs and get the kind of health care, including mental health referrals, that they need to survive without their families.

As a vulnerable population, LGBT Americans need publicly funded health care more than ever. We are more likely to be homeless, to think suicidal thoughts, to suffer job discrimination than our straight counterparts. We have less access to safe-sex information that represents our sex practices.

Last month, I went to the Howard Brown Health Center to get a basic STD screening (something we all should be doing regularly, but, let’s be honest, we all forget about/ put off). It’s a health clinic that specializes in LGBT health issues and fundraises to supply low cost or free services. They still charged me $95.00.

This is a disincentive for vulnerable members of our community to get the testing and medical help they need. That, in turn, puts us all at risk.

We need a public option for health care. We need to be willing to tax the richest among us a little more to get it. We need to be just a little more Canadian.

Everybody’s going to want to know…why did you do Top Model?

I went to Wesleyan University and studied government and foreign policy…and wrote a thesis my senior year on the impact of exit strategies on United States intervention abroad in the Post-Cold War Era. I was sitting around with my friends one day and they told me ‘you have to do something crazy before you go to law school!’

I had never wanted to be a model. My mom was a model, and I always thought was cool, but not for me. My friends saw an ad for Top Model and told me I had to audition. I went basically because of a bet. My friends and I made a bet; I lost it and went to the audition.

Kim Stolz

What was the experience like? They had you pegged from the beginning as the “out” and “androgynous” one.

I wasn’t born yesterday….At that time in my life I was exploring my sexuality; it was an experimental time. I’m very proud of it, though. I wanted to go on the show. I wanted to make some kid in a small town in South Dakota know that it’s ok to be gay.

What happened after the show?

After the show I signed with Elite and was with them for a couple years. Recently I’ve been working part-time with MTV News and have been doing political and investigative journalism.

Are you currently signed with an agency?

I was recently approached by Ford about signing with them. It’s going to be different this time around; I’m not going to be going to thousands of castings a week fighting for jobs with a bunch of Eastern European girls. I’m going for bigger campaigns, like hosting and spokesmodel jobs. I’m actually under three of their categories: image, celebrity, and music.

How did you get your job with MTV?

I had spoken with Mike Powers about working at MTV. Music has always been very important to me, but I wasn’t thinking of doing anything on air. Mike told me about an audition to be on a show and told me to give it a shot. I worked on the Freshman for a while and then slowly transitioned into more newsy stuff.

Are you still planning on staying with MTV in the future or transitioning more into other forms of journalism?

I love MTV. They have given me such a great skill set. I have been able to do everything from cover the Michael Jackson memorial to an upcoming music festival for MTVU. I’m slowly taking myself out of the daily coverage but am still doing special events. Right now I’m just looking to expand my interests.

What is your ideal job?

My ideal job? Depends on whether you mean my ideal job now or five to ten years in the future. I would love to produce and host my own political talk show. I would have on guests and political pundits and we would discuss the top news of the day. I would also like to go out in the field a lot for the show. I have always wanted to be a war correspondent, so that’s something I’d still like to do. And I’m still interested in working on long foreign pieces.

Do you think you’ll still go to law school?

I’m actually taking the LSAT in September.

What other journalism work have you done?

I’ve been writing for the Huffington Post and True/Slant, a political website. I’m going to continue to write in the future. I hope there will be a writing component to anything I do in the future.

What are your opinions of the Obama administration? He’s been receiving a lot of criticism from gay rights groups.

Look, it would be political suicide for a first term president to support equal rights for the LGBT community. I’m actually not radical in my political views and am a moderate, though most people don’t know that. The thing I have the biggest issue with is DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Obama has stated in the past that he doesn’t believe [same sex marriage] is a federal issue but a state issue. Then you need to repeal DOMA because it’s contradictory and is a federal law!

How else have you used the platform you’ve gotten from TV to help gay rights?

I’ve spoken at several rallys and events, doing things like speaking out against Proposition 8. I spoke at city hall last year against Prop 8. I also just hope that through just being out and not being afraid to express my sexuality I’ll make an impact. I still get Facebook and Myspace messages telling me “thanks for coming out, you’ve been a great inspiration.”

I’ve also spoken at GLAAD and HRC events to just try and involve myself. I don’t hide who I am or sway from my sexuality.

What have you fans been like since the show? Any crazies?

*laughs* I use Twitter, and I have it set where it shows my location, but thankfully it’s broad enough so you don’t get the exact location. Once in a while I’ll get a crazy email or a package in my MTV mailbox and will have to get security involved. I do have to say, though, that I’m lucky to have such a world-wide audience and I’m grateful to the LGBT community for being so supportive.

Have you ever received any flack?

Being on everything from MTV to Fox News I’ve reached a large number of people. My fans are very diverse. I’ll see the comments saying, “Kim is ugly, Kim is fat, Kim is obnoxious.” I certainly get that.  Luckily I’ve never been called stupid. But I realize not everyone is going to like me.

Do you get any hateful messages?

You know, I’ve been called fat and obnoxious, but I’ve never received any homophobic remarks.

Tell me about your style. It seems to have changed from days in Top Model.

It has and it hasn’t. While modeling and at MTV I’ve tapped into a different side of myself. While on ANTM, I was a college student exploring my sexuality. Yesterday I was wearing low rise jeans and a plaid shirt and today I’m wearing heels and a plaid mini dress. I don’t think about what that means. I’m definitely not betraying who I am. I have to say, that MTV, Ford, and Elite have never asked me to change what I wear. I’ve never felt pressured to dress a certain way. It has always been my choice.

Thank you so much for the interview!

It was my pleasure.

The Justice Department let the deadline to appeal the decision pass Tuesday, a day after President Barack Obama hosted gay supporters at the White House and promised to be their “champion.” Some activists have complained he has not led on their causes, including ending the ban on gays in the military.

Diane Schroer, a retired Army Special Forces commander from Alexandria, Va., had been offered a job at the Library of Congress when he was a man, David Schroer. The job was rescinded the day after Schroer told a library official he was going to have an operation to become a woman.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Schroer’s behalf in 2005, and two months ago a federal judge awarded her $491,190 in back pay and damages because of sex discrimination.

The Library of Congress and President George W. Bush’s Justice Department had argued unsuccessfully that discrimination because of transsexuality was not illegal sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

Schroer said she saw the administration’s decision not to appeal as a recognition that transgender discrimination must end and “gives me renewed hope and restores some of my shaken faith in what our country stands for.”

“This case put employers on notice that discrimination against transgender individuals is like any other form of discrimination – counterproductive and against our principles as a nation,” she said in a statement. But she added that Congress must pass a law preventing “rampant” transgender discrimination across the country.

Schroer is a former U.S. Army colonel who directed a classified group that tracked and targeted terrorists. Schroer retired in 2004 after 25 years of service and worked briefly in the private sector before applying for the Congressional Research Service job at the Library of Congress.

After being offered the job, Schroer had lunch with a Library of Congress official and explained the upcoming surgery. Schroer testified the official called the next day and said the position would not be a “good fit.”

The ACLU said the decision not to appeal fits with Obama’s campaign promises to protect transgender workers against discrimination and his administration’s recent order taking steps to bar gender identity discrimination in federal employment.

“The administration’s decision not to challenge this important civil rights ruling is a welcome sign that it intends to live up to its commitment to help end transgender discrimination in the workplace,” said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Lieutenant Dan Choi who has just been dismissed from the US Army for 'being openly gay', declares that he will try to protest his case during President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to Los Angeles, at a gay protest rally in Hollywood on May 26, 2009

My mother gave me Dreams From My Father after I started volunteering for the Obama campaign. I didn’t read it, I now regretfully admit, until a month ago. By then I had bought into the “hope,” had my heart broken by the Rick Warren choice and had decided the new President was going to need as much, if not more lobbying on gay rights issues than any Republican.

Well, yesterday, a number of people who have spent most of their lives working for full equality in this country heard the President give a pretty perfect speech in commemoration of the Stonewall riots. He might have sidestepped the actual issues, refused to back down from defending DOMA and refused to stop discharging out military personnel, but he stated, unequivocally, that he is committed to the repeal of all federal discrimination against LGBT Americans.

Anyone who has read Dreams From My Father knows that this is not a man who believes in discrimination and this is not a man who approves of second-class treatment for any class of U.S. citizens.

So, now that that is out of the way, can we stop worrying about Obama and his administration for a while?

If we look at the track record of this administration – the movement away from public health care, the passing of a flawed energy bill, the back and forth on Guantanamo – we have to wonder just how much influence it has over conservative democrats and republicans. If it can’t pass a comprehensive overhaul of health care, something people expressly voted for when electing Obama, then how is it going to repeal laws that a large proportion of Americans don’t care about or to which many don’t object?

The political cost of discrimination eventually becomes too great for the system to operate successfully. This happens when those within a community and their supporters become angry, begin boycotts and push legislators to move rights issues to the top of the agenda.

LGBT rights are not at the top of the agenda today. They are not going to get there if we just wait for a lull in the crisis facing this country. They are not going to get there if we place all our hope in the beliefs or opinions of the President.

Today, Lt. Dan Choi faces his review in military court. His livelihood and the livelihood of all those fired for being gay, beaten up for being gay, separated from their partners for being gay, depends on a shift in the conversation from Obama to the much broader lobbying efforts that target congress and the senate; a lobby that makes it just too damn expensive to keep endorsing bigotry in U.S. laws.

The Congressional members, led by Democratic Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, did not call for an executive order halting discharges; instead they seek to change the way that DADT is implemented.

“It is a presidential moratorium, it is a significant presidential action, but it’s not an executive order,” said Christopher Neff, political director at the Palm Center, a research institute at University of California, Santa Barbara. “They basically want the military to disregard anyone who ‘tells’ [of someone's sexuality] as long as there isn’t a [Uniform Code of Military Justice] violation or something criminal.”

Full letter with signatories below:

Dear President Obama:

The United States of America prides itself on having the finest military in the world because of the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of our brave servicemen and women. And yet, under 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces), better known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the talents and contributions of our openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members continue to be ignored simply because of who they are. Every day, we lose approximately two service members to this misguided, unjust, and flat-out discriminatory policy. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not only an injustice to them, but a disservice to the U.S. military and our country as a whole.

As you know, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton as a compromise to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve in the military — so long as they did not disclose their sexual orientations. Fifteen years later, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is instead negatively impacting the lives and livelihoods of these military professionals and depriving our Armed Forces of their honorable service. Since you took office on January 20, 2009, more than 250 gay and lesbian service members have been discharged under this law, which continues to undermine and demoralize the more than 65,000 gay and lesbian Americans currently serving on active duty.

Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, our LGBT service members and our country’s national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011. We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until Congress repeals the law. To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell. Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination. This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation’s lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.

As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country’s military competence and readiness. Despite the great strain on our military’s human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the last five years. This is indefensible. The financial cost alone of implementing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million. Our nation’s military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest. To do anything less only hurts our country’s military readiness and our service members.

We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in action. New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people. Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.

Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force. Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.

The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69% of Americans, including 58% of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, revealed that 73% are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni cofounded by First Lieutenant Choi.

Mr. President, we cannot afford to lose any more of our dedicated and talented service members to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. On behalf of First Lieutenant Choi, Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, and the more than 12,500 gay and lesbian service members who have been discharged since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented in 1994, we stand ready to assist you in repealing this dishonorable and debilitating law as soon as possible, and in restoring justice and equality in our Armed Forces.

Please know that we will continue to monitor this situation and are hopeful that, together, we can address this urgent issue soon. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

The letter was authored by Rep. Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-VA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP).