President Obama will name New York’s Republican Rep. John McHugh to the Army Secretary post. So how does the McHugh rank for gay equality? Law Dork: “In the 110th Congress, McHugh was not a co-sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would have repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In fact, McHugh on received an unimpressive 15% on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard for the 110th. He was, however, one of 35 Republicans to vote ‘yes’ on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”
UPDATE: The Advocate‘s Kerry Eleveld today asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs whether McHugh supports the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Gibbs said yes. The exchange:
ELEVELD: On the nomination of Representative McHugh, last year, during the “don’t ask, don’t tell” hearings, he expressed a deep desire to move forward with a review of the policy and he said, “I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance they have displayed to this point.” Was a review of the policy something that the president took into consideration with this nomination and will Congressman McHugh be encouraged to move forward with talks inside the department?
GIBBS: I think it’s obvious from those statements and other statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the president are in agreement on changing the policy they both don’t think is working for this country right now. And it’s a priority of the president’s and I think for any number of reasons we have a nominee that we hope will be confirmed quickly and will have — ah, based on his background and experience — will help to improve the lives of the Army.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Doubting Thomas
In his short term, he voted twice for the Constitutional ban on marriage equality, and once against gay adoptions in DC, so his vote for ENDA was a surprise.
His comments and questions during last summer’s hearing on the DADT repeal bill for which he’s not a sponsor on the one hand naively at best defended the phony propaganda behind its original passage and on the other “seemed” to be somewhat open minded about the future.
But I’m skeptical. Security in his job as Army Secretary will depend on agreeing with Gates about everything and I believe Gate’s homophobia is as transparent as glass.
Meanwhile the mealy mouthed worn out limousine liberal head of the now TOTALLY WORTHLESS repeal group SLDN keeps pretending that Obama still gives a damn about repeal rather than admitting that he’s caved to Pentagon bigots.
Timothy
HRC’s scorecard has become useless. In the last Congress, the majority of their scoring was based not on voting but on whether a legislator SIGNED ON AS A SPONSOR of a bill.
Seriously.
You could have never voted against a single thing the gay community wanted and still have HRC calling you anti-gay because you didn’t SPONSOR bills they wanted you to sponsor.
So I don’t know about this guy, but HRC’s report tells me nothing useful.
Timothy
DT:
“Meanwhile the mealy mouthed worn out limousine liberal head of the now TOTALLY WORTHLESS repeal group SLDN keeps pretending that Obama still gives a damn about repeal rather than admitting that he’s caved to Pentagon bigots.”
Are you sure? All I hear from SLDN is pretty negative about the administration. I think the latest is a count of how many gay folk kicked out under Obama.
Doubting Thomas
“‘So far his senior military team is not on the same page with the president and has not aligned with him yet’, said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to repealing the ban. ‘Or if they are, it is certainly not apparent’, he added. Mullen and Gates know ‘very well’ Obama’s position, Sarvis charged. ‘We have not heard them say they share that objective. It would be helpful if they supported it’.” – TheHill.com, June 1, 2009.
Wow, that’s really telling ’em Aubrey!
Yes SLDN’s counter showing the number of continuing discharges is good.
BUT for reasons only a shrink could figure out Sarvis has gone against their own experts at the Palm Center and insisted that Obama should NOT freeze discharges using his “national emergency” powers.
His excuse supposed list that “that would only be a temporary solution” while at the same time he’s hanging on like a pit bull to the ludicrous idea that Obama should take money out of the 2010 defense budget that pays for discharge processing. AS IF that wouldn’t be a “temporary solution,” too, and as if that wouldn’t cause a bigger fight because it’s a “sneaky” method to attack the issue rather than the freeze approach which could easily be defended to the American public in terms of benefitting THEIR security.
Differences of opinions about methods aside, nothing better illustrated SLDN’s irrelevance than the fact that Cong. Ellen Tauscher didn’t even show up for the rally in front of the Capitol building in March that SLDN organized for HER repeal DADT bill. Even gay Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin didn’t show, nor did any of them for SLDN’s annual fundraising banquet the next night.
No wonder so many veteran employees quit SLDN after he took over and others keep jumping his sinking ship.
Timothy
DT
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
Eric
To be honest, it is going to be difficult to find senior brass material that’s pro gay. First of all, most of them are from the deep south and most of them are really Republican. Maybe Wesley Clark….but WC said some controversial stuff that will keep him out of any posts for a while.
Honestly, when Obama does this he is going to get major blow back from the Pentagon which will affect his ability to get things done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why he wants Congress to be holding the bag a little bit too. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, I just think it’s going to take a lot more organizing on our part to get it done. We need to create the political space for him to make a declaration.
Or, maybe we could ask him to sign an ex order saying we are no longer going to waste our time investigating sodomy in the military (which is what they are charging people with BTW) and focus on more weighty matters given our limited resources.
yeson8won
@Doubting Thomas: Why do you homosexuals describe every principled opposition to homosexuality as ‘homophobia’?
I’m sure Secretary Gates does not have a ‘fear or aversion’ to homosexuals any more than to short-sighted people or sub 5-footers who don’t meet US military entry requirements either.
This is where the GBLT ‘community” always goes wrong – trying to blame everyone else for their lifestyle decisions.
DonG90806
@yeson8won: Opposition to gay views is not “principled” opposition; it’s bigotry. Secondly, gays and lesbians are born that way; it’s called an orientation, just as heterosexuals are born that way; it’s also called an orientation. By the way, when did you choose to become a heterosexual? Obviously, you can’t see the stupidity of those kinds of questions.
InExile
@yeson8won: Why are bigots visiting this website? Go comment at Fox News or Newsmax!
The Gay Numbers
I guess 70 percent of the public is now homosexuals based on Yes’s post. Who knew.
InExile
Three posibilities:
a) It’s really a bigot with nothing better to do. Sadly, there are such peo.
b) It’s a socket puppet meant to stir up shit
c) One of the groups that monitors these issues (and yes there are right wingers who do that including monitoring sites like Daily Kos during the lead up to prop 8) has decided to chime in.
I don’t know which it is.
yeson8won
@DonG90806: A bigot is ” a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice”.
Which makes you a bigot based on the comment you just made.
Is pedophilia an ‘orientation’ too? Are they born that way so they can’t help it?
The truth is homosexuality is a behaviour, just like anger. Should we excuse people with a propensity towards being angry?
And nobody needs to choose to be heterosexual, no more than you need to choose to chew with your teeth not your ears,or walk on your feet not your hands.
Heterosexuality is the natural purpose of human sexuality.
yeson8won
@The Gay Numbers:
Try d) None of the Above.
I thought you tolerant, free-thinking, ‘progressive’ homosexuals were all about free speech and listening to all sides of the debate?
The Gay Numbers
Well- with yes, I think I am going to move to a different section of the subway to avoid eye contact with the crazy babbling stuff to himself.
Alec
@yeson8won: Why not address your ridiculous points?
Is pedophilia an ‘orientation’ too? Are they born that way so they can’t help it?
Good question. I’m not a psychiatrist, but even if pedophilia is an orientation with a biological basis, the actual act of child molestation creates a victim. Rape may also have a biological component; that doesn’t mean that rape can be tolerated. On the other hand, two men or two women having consensual sex together doesn’t create any problems, in and of itself. No more, at least, than a male and a female having sex together.
Per Lawrence V. Texas, btw, you’ve lost this argument.
The truth is homosexuality is a behaviour, just like anger. Should we excuse people with a propensity towards being angry?
As long as they’re not assaulting anyone, there’s nothing to “excuse,” is there?
And nobody needs to choose to be heterosexual
Well, heterosexuals of course need not “choose” their attractions; but like any behavior, it must be chosen. They choose to hold hands, have sex, etc.
Heterosexuality is the natural purpose of human sexuality.
There’s no natural purpose of human sexuality. By your reasoning, only male-female vaginal sex is appropriate, and only then when each act carries the potential of procreation. Everything else, implicitly, is against “the natural purpose of human sexuality” and therefore wrong.
yeson8won
@The Gay Numbers: Obviously the truth hurts you and your comrades.
yeson8won
@Alec: There’s no natural purpose of human sexuality.
Wrong. But not unusual for homosexuals to try and stand all logic on its head.
Why else would human sexuality exist if not to ensure continuation of the species?
That’s why it feels good, same reason you have taste buds so you enjoy eating.
Homosexuality is infertile and serves no purpose other than sexual gratification. You might as well screw an inflatable doll or a hole in the wall.
And heterosexuality doesn’t only mean intercourse. All other heterosexual behaviour is a forerunner to intercourse for procreation.
That’s why you exist today. Pity your parents didn’t have that little chat with you about the birds and bees.
TheBigotBasher
@Alec:
The truth is homosexuality is a behaviour, just like anger. Should we excuse people with a propensity towards being angry?
So then it is a natural tendency? An orientation?
Alec
@yeson8won: Why else would human sexuality exist if not to ensure continuation of the species?
Nature doesn’t “care” about the “continuation of the species,” which is hardly imperiled by the existence of nonprocreating members of society. There’s simply no purpose to nature.
That’s why it feels good, same reason you have taste buds so you enjoy eating.
Well people enjoy cigarettes, fatty foods and drugs. The fact that something “feels good” is immaterial. Oral sex “feels good,” but it doesn’t serve any procreative purpose.
And heterosexuality doesn’t only mean intercourse. All other heterosexual behaviour is a forerunner to intercourse for procreation.
While I agee that “heterosexuality doesn’t only mean intercourse,” I disagree strongly hat “heterosexual behavior is a forerunner to intercourse for procreation.” Most heterosexual sex doesn’t reslt in procreation; much heterosexual behavior doesn’t serve any procreative purpose. Without the possibility for procreation, according to your “logic,” heterosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.
Alec
@TheBigotBasher: I think you mean to respond to username “yeson8won.”
TheBigotBasher
Yep – soz. I’m a Lame Newby. 🙂
yeson8won
@TheBigotBasher: So then it is a natural tendency? An orientation?
It’s a behaviour. Just like pedophilia, anger, docility, being anti-social, gregariousness or burping in public.
It’s under the control of the individual according to what is deemed culturally acceptable.
yeson8won
@TheBigotBasher: No problem, welcome to our forum.
Catherine
@yeson8won:
Okay, 1, it’s evident that you’re straight, and vehemently opposed to homosexuality, so I can’t quite figure out why you’re here. What do you care what goes on in others’ bedrooms? I don’t care what goes on in yours.
And 2, I’m pretty sure I didn’t choose to be bisexual. Why would I choose to have to endure teasing, and force myself to come out to my parents, which is a difficult thing, even with liberal parents like mine? What on Earth could be my reasoning? And if it was my choice, it must have been a subconscious one, because I don’t remember ever considering the pros and cons of the issue.
And, as Alec said, pedophilia and rape create victims. Homosexuality doesn’t.
So what exactly is principled about supporting DADT?
yeson8won
@Catherine: So what exactly is principled about supporting DADT?
Don’t people have a right to find homosexuality morally objectionable?
Don’t members of the military have a right to privacy and decency from people with whom they are forced to live in close quarters?
Otherwise why not let straight men and women share accommodation, showers, etc?
yeson8won
@Catherine: What do you care what goes on in others’ bedrooms?
I don’t.
But when that behaviour is somehow morphed into a minority grouping that demands the redefinition of marriage, special legal protections, influence on the education of my children etc, then I have a right to object.
1star
@Doubting Thomas: Secretary Gates is one of the best defense secretaries this country has ever encountered; he has been an outstanding public servant throughout his life. He helped us avoid the mess we are facing now in the first gulf war. He has helped correct some of the atrocious blunders that the Bush-Rumsfeld Pentagon created, and made tremendous progress on the wars. He is also revamping the Pentagon towards purchasing stuff that we can actually use to defend the country and win wars, instead of spending billions of dollars on go nowhere projects. His realist approach to foreign policy is also extremely refreshing granted that its been 16 years since we have had a sensible foreign policy. Therefore I have to hold Gates in high esteem even if his gay right resume is not off to snuff.
Catherine
@yeson8won:
But we aren’t demanding special legal protection! We’re demanding the same rights you have. We aren’t going to influence the education of your children either, because schools don’t teach kids about marriage. Parents do. And you can teach them what you like.
And while you didn’t mention this specifically, we aren’t threatening religion either. Churches can choose not to marry people for their own reasons.
We aren’t forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Just let us have the right to marry the person we love.
I hope that you’d agree with me that Canada is a functioning society. Well, we’ve legalized gay marriage. We haven’t descended into Hell yet, unless Hell is actually frozen over. (Ha ha ha)
As for the military, I think that gays can control themselves. Besides, gays can and do serve in the military. They just can’t admit their sexuality. So all your doing is forcing gays back into the closet.
lileasy
@Catherine: You nailed it Catherine. I spent four years in the military as a closeted man…two years in Nam. I never had sex with any of my comrades during that period, although I was approached often enough. Like many gay men I do not fit the stereotype of the promiscuous satyr. I have been monogamous and with my partner for 40+ years now.