Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Anecdotal stubbornness vs. documented evidence: Do you care yet, John McCain?

DADT trial Right-wing

(Cross-posted from Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

When reporters Kerry Eleveld and Chris Geidner pressed him on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell discharges, Sen. John McCain (Increasingly Far R-AZ) had a very novel response:

201009220827-2

Well, Senator, maybe you will care what diligent DADT researcher (and G-A-Y friend) Dr. Nathaniel Frank had to say in his 2009 book Unfriendly Fire:

From pp. 178-183:

But by all accounts the witch hunts, seizures of private possessions, security clearance denials and delays, and outings by counselors, doctors and clergy were not what the politicians promised, and not what military leaders like Colin Powell publicly supported when he signed onto “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue,” saying “we will not ask, we will not witch hunt, we will not seek to learn orientation.”[i] As Byzantine as the policy is, some things are quite clear: commanders are not allowed to ask, and no one is allowed to harass.

Yet hundreds of indisputable violations of the policy’s strictures against asking, pursuing and harassing have been documented each year since its birth in 1994. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a watchdog and legal aid organization that has monitored the effects of the policy since its inception, reported 340 command violations (perpetrated by the military) in the first year alone, including fifteen actual or attempted “witch hunts” and ten death threats to service members for perceived homosexuality. For the first three years, SLDN documented 1146 violations, with the number increasing each of those years. The abuses of “don’t ask” have ranged from the purposeful to the neglectful to the vicious. Examples documented by SLDN include the continued use of outdated documents asking recruits if they were gay (as late as 2002, the Air Force was found to be using a fifteen-year-old form that asked recruits “are you homosexual or bisexual?”); routine flouting of the “don’t ask” principle by simply asking service members, “are you gay?” or substitute questions such as asking men, “do you find men attractive?”; violating the prohibition on asking about sexual identity in security clearance inquiries by asking if applicants are in “a physical relationship” with a roommate of the same sex; and mocking “don’t ask” with questions such as, “I’m not going to ask you if you’re homosexual, but if I did ask, how would you respond?”[ii]

Sometimes the questions were hostile. A chief of boat shouted to a sailor, “You [sic] not going to tell me you’re a fucking faggot, are you?” A Marine recruiter said, “Because of President Clinton’s new policy, I can’t ask you if you’re a fag. So I’ll just ask if you suck cock.” Other times the hostility was less overt, but with the same effect, as when an officer told a woman under his command, “I know you’re a lesbian,” leaving her tongue-tied and unsure of the consequence of his statement. Still other times, the sheer repetition of infractions wore troops down and out. At San Antonio’s Lackland Airforce Base, where some of the worst and highest number of violations took place, unit members asked an airman if he was gay so many times that he simply acknowledged the truth, and lost his job. A sailor was asked if she had “ever told anyone on the ship that you are gay.” Despite the blatant violation the question constituted, her captain threatened her with criminal prosecution if she did not answer the question or if she made false statements. The threat itself was also completely forbidden under the policy, but the pressure was too much for the sailor, who admitted she was a lesbian and was quickly thrown out.[iii]

The limits on pursuits have been even more flagrantly ignored. Investigators have seized letters, diaries, books, magazines, computers, even posters of lesbian singers, including Melissa Etheridge and k.d. lang, in an effort to determine service members’ sexuality and past history. In 1996, an Air Force Major, for example, was investigated on criminal charges of sodomy after the clerk at the local MotoPhoto store saw fit to make an extra copy of his pictures—nothing sexual, just the major with his arm around another man—and sent them to the Office of Special Investigations. In the Navy, a commander read through the medical records of one sailor and started discharge proceedings after noticing treatment of a medical condition associated with gay men. For the discharge investigation of a Marine corporal, inquiry officers counted among admissible evidence attendance at the Dinah Shore golf tournament and buying Anne Rice novels. Such unfounded extrapolations from the slimmest bits of “evidence,” such wild and groundless speculation based on nothing but stereotypes, were clearly violations of “don’t pursue.”[iv]

When Airman Sonya Harden was investigated, the “credible evidence” that began the process was a third party accuser who was in an ongoing quarrel with Harden over money. Harden insisted she was straight, and brought ex-boyfriends to testify on her behalf. Eventually, her accuser admitted she was lying when she charged that Harden was in a lesbian relationship, and that her motive was retaliation for the financial dispute. Harden was discharged anyway, despite the recanted charge and the testimony of ex-boyfriends.[v]

The misuse, abuse and neglect of evidence in discharge proceedings should come as no surprise given the make-up of all too many of the discharge boards. In reviewing colonels who were up for board of inquiry spots, one said, “I think homosexuals are immoral,” another said he thought they “have either a physiological or psychological problem as deviant from society,” and a third said “my religious beliefs are against homosexuality.” The three colonels were placed on the board. “I think it would be hard to find three board members that would have an opinion different from those already expressed,” commented the lieutenant colonel responsible for choosing the board.[vi]]

With such attitudes rampant throughout the military leadership, suspected and accused service members rarely stood a chance. But if violations of “don’t pursue” referred to over-zealous investigations of friends and family on flimsy evidence, full-scale “witch hunts” were used to describe expanding webs of inquiry that sought to pressure military members to turn one another in by “naming names.” The notorious witch hunts were rampant in the years prior to “don’t ask, don’t tell” and were a major impetus behind reform, with its promises of a “zone of privacy.” But throughout the 1990s, little changed, and in some ways, things got worse: the venomous rhetoric of the cultural and political debate around gay service, together with the bitterness felt by many in the military who resented what they perceived as the imposition of social change by military outsiders, raised temperatures on this issue, and shone a spotlight on the elephant in the room—who might be gay among us?

The United States Military Academy at West Point is the elite training ground for U.S. army officers. Like all military commands, West Point has extensive counseling available to ensure the well-being of service members. So when Cadet Nikki Galvan’s mother died, an academy counselor was available to help her deal with her grief, and suggested she keep a journal as part of her mourning process. In it, Galvan confided, or so she thought, about a number of very private emotions she was facing, and one of these was her sexuality. Not long after she started her journal, she was asked point blank—in front of four other cadets—if she was a lesbian by her lieutenant colonel. Instead of answering, Galvan submitted a complaint. But rather than taking action against the improper questioning of Galvan, the Army seized her personal diary and private emails under a pretext that officials were investigating a reported “disturbance in the ranks.” An investigation ensued, whose report reads that Galvan “violate[d]” regulations “by making various statements in her diary indicating a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts or conduct.” Galvan said she felt “violated and humiliated,” and that her friends stopped talking to her out of fear they would be suspected of being gay. ”My cadet life became unbearable,” she remembered. Facing a discharge, Galvin resigned. West Point tried to recoup $100,000 in tuition funds, based on failing to honor the service obligation that cadets incur by attending for free. Her departure ended an excruciating ordeal for her, but marked just the beginning for West Point, where officials expanded the investigation into an outright witch hunt that took aim at thirty other women at the academy.[vii]

The West Point witch hunt sparked by Galvan’s ordeal was more the rule than the exception. In the spring of 1994, military investigators interrogated over twenty marines about their sexual orientation. One was thrown in a military jail for over a month. Another had his bed turned on its side, his private possessions ransacked and his personal computer confiscated. The navy admitted the next year that it had engaged in a witch hunt, but—with no punishment for wrongful investigations—no one in the military was held accountable or suffered any consequences, besides the marine who languished in the brig for a month of his life, and the rest of the troops who were terrified into a state of permanent insecurity.[viii]

Later that same year, a young soldier serving in South Korea endured a horrendous ordeal when she was assaulted by a group of male soldiers who also threatened to rape her. Her resistance prompted her attackers to spread lies that she was a lesbian. This phenomenon, known as lesbian-baiting, is one of the most troubling abuses of the gay ban, when men whose advances are rebuffed accuse women of being lesbians, out of retaliation or wounded ego (some men, no doubt, have convinced themselves that any woman who refuses their charms must not be straight). Again and again, female service members who report harassment, even rape, end up the target of threatened and actual investigations into their sexuality. And several of these victims, like the soldier in South Korea, were straight. When she reported the incident, her commanding officer turned on her, accusing her of being gay and threatening her with prison if she did not admit it and identify other service members suspected of being gay. A military judge dismissed the charges due to lack of evidence, but her command would not let up, starting administrative discharge proceedings against her. Only after enormous legal intervention by SLDN and great financial cost to the soldier’s family did the Army relent, allowing the harrowing experience to end with a delayed transfer to a new command.[ix]

One of the largest witch hunts unfolded in Sardinia, Italy early in 1996, aboard the U.S.S. Simon Lake. Prompted by questions directed at Seaman Amy Barnes, Navy personnel expanded their inquiry to encompass a shocking sixty women on the ship. In sworn affidavits, sailors alleged that the Navy intimidated, threatened and harassed them in an effort to force them to out themselves or others. “If you do not tell the truth, you will go to jail for 10-15 years, one investigator told Heather Hilbun, before she was grilled on her own sexuality and that of six other named women. “Command Investigators threatened and intimidated me into giving involuntary statements,” testified another, “by telling me I would be violating Article 78 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and would go to jail if I did not answer their questions.” The sailor commented that “being forced into giving statements which had the potential to be used against RMSN Barnes, who is my friend, was extremely upsetting.” Unchastened, the Navy argued in court that service members had “no legal basis upon which to challenge” the extraordinary scope of the investigation, as the current rules “create no enforceable rights” for those who get caught in the military’s intrusive net.[x]

During the same period in early 1996, the Air Force showed exactly what their priorities were in the age of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Airman Bryan Harris faced life in prison for the accused rape another man and other related charges. Because Harris was gay, his sex life was seen as an invitation for investigators to catch other gays in the military—even if it meant drastically reducing his punishment for a real crime in exchange for learning the names of men who simply happened to be gay. Late in January, Air Force lawyers struck a deal with Harris to give him just a 20-month sentence if he named all the men he had had sex with in the military. Of the seventeen men he named, five were in the Air Force (the rest were in other service branches), and each was promptly rounded up and charged with homosexual conduct. Questions in the Air Force investigations into Harris’ peers included asking co-workers if they would be “surprised to find out that” the airmen were gay, if the airmen ever talked about women, “you know, the way men talk about women,” where and with whom the airmen hung out, and if it would seem “unusual” for the airmen not to have girlfriends—all bald violations of guidelines restricting questions about orientation or about events outside the circumstances in question. Four were fired. The fifth was court-martialed in a criminal trial, and terrorized by word from officials that he could get thirty years in prison—for consensual sex with another man. Eventually he was allowed to leave the military without serving jail time.[xi]

[i] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Policy Concerning Homosexuality, 1993, 709.

[ii] “Conduct Unbecoming: The First Annual Report,” 1995; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” (Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, report 1996); “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” (Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, report 1997); “Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” (Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, report 2003).

[iii] “Conduct Unbecoming: The First Annual Report,” 1995; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report,” 1999; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report,” 1996; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report,” 1997.

[iv] “Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report,” 1996; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report,” 1997.

[v] “Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report,” 1999.

[vi] “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report,” 1997.

[vii] Carolyn Lochhead, “Defense Secretary Says He Will Correct Treatment of Gays,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 27 1997; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report,” 1997; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report,” 1999.

[viii] “Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report,” 1996; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report,” 1999.

[ix] “Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report,” 1996.

[x] “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report,” 1997.

[xi] J. Jennings Moss, “Losing the War,” Advocate, April 15, 1997; “Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report,” 1997.

**SEE ALSO: Frank’s recent report, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: The Damage”:

(Scribd upload courtesy of Towleroad)

112 Comments

  • 1. Ronnie  |  September 22, 2010 at 2:48 am

    More like he is just plain selfish….just like every other anti-equality, anti-gay supporter out there…He is a sad pathetic little man…shame on him…. > I …Ronnie

  • 2. Lauren  |  September 22, 2010 at 2:48 am

    I hope you are actually sending these letters and other evidence to McCain's office, rather than simply posting them here. McCain and his staffers probably don't read this blog, but they do read the letters and faxes, and do meet with constituents!

  • 3. AndrewPDX  |  September 22, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Subscribin'… busy day @ work, will catch up later.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 4. Ann S.  |  September 22, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Me, too.

  • 5. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 2:52 am

    yup, need these emails too.

  • 6. Sagesse  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:00 am

    McCain is a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. It is unconscionable that he does not educate himself about the matters he deals with there.

  • 7. Alan E.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Just subscribing because I have to go to work as soon as I finish reading the decision released about the Florida adoption case. The transcript can be found here:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37935008/3D08-3044

    Note that this is a state court case and not a federal one, but important still. My favorite quote so far is this:

    The steps taken by the existing three-person household to address the medical, emotional, and educational needs of the two adoptive children are nothing short of heroic.

  • 8. Alan E.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:06 am

    click the button

  • 9. Cat  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:06 am

    A bit OT, but I'm eager to know the answer: did Harry Reid torpedo repeal of DADT through the defense spending bill by adding the other two amendments, and barring the Republicans from adding their own? I hope anybody can shed some light on that.

  • 10. Steve  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:09 am

    No. Remember that the vote was about whether the NDAA should go to debate. The Republicans voted against even debating it. They could have hashed out the specific amendments during the actual discussion on the floor. That's the proper place for it.

    The Dream Act is especially funny, since last time the Republicans attached it to the NDAA. Everyone always tries to add all kinds of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the military. McCain once attached a bill about campaign financing.

  • 11. Steve  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:10 am

    "Unfriendly Fire" was sent to all Senators. Whether they read it is another matter. McCain certainly wouldn't touch it.

  • 12. Ann S.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Watch the Rachel Maddow episodes from the Videopalooza post from yesterday. Harry Reid did NOT bar new amendments, the Republicans just used that as a talking point.

  • 13. Ann S.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:12 am

    McCain is clearly keeping himself willfully ignorant. He heard testimony of discharged servicemembers whose personal emails were searched, and then denies that it's happening. What an ass.

  • 14. Cat  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Thanks!

  • 15. Ed  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Deviants!! We are all Deviants!!

    (from the american family association…)
    http://afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147498534

    Idiots……

  • 16. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:27 am

    They used it as a "lying" point rather than a "talking" point. Of course, it seems like most of the time lately with the GOP senators, "talking" and "lying" are interchangeable terms.

  • 17. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:32 am

    The guy who wrote that says that the one thing that defines homosexuals is the desire for sex involving the anal cavity. Has he never met a lesbian? Has he never met a straight man who enjoys anal sex? Has he never met a straight woman who enjoys anal sex?

    Aside from that — he seems to think that there are no gays currently serving in the military & that letting gays in would be the end of life and civilization as we know it.

    Psst. Idiot-man. THERE ARE AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN GAYS IN THE MILITARY!!!

  • 18. Steve  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:37 am

    There are far, far more straight people who have anal sex than gay ones.

    A lot of the times it seems like these people are projecting their own fantasies onto other people.

  • 19. Ronnie  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:38 am

    You mean the Anti-American Fascist ASSociation?

    : / ….Ronnie

  • 20. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:38 am

    This is deplorable –

    Some Chaplains Plead, Don't Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

    While most debate has been over what happens in soldiers' close living conditions, that isn't the chaplains' biggest concern, according to Jan McCormack, director of chaplaincy and pastoral counseling at Denver Seminary.

    "What I do worry about is what it might mean if a chaplain who had a viewpoint about homosexuality refused to counsel or work with somebody," she said.

    If gay and lesbian soldiers receive protective status, McCormack said, how does that affect the expectations of the military's 3,000 active-duty chaplains? "What if a commander decides that I'm supposed to counsel by myself a lesbian female and I don't think I should? I just don't hear Congress thinking about that end of it."

    More: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/septembe

  • 21. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Well, I will admit that I am a deviant…but not because of my homosexuality.

  • 22. Dave P.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Well, if you're a chaplain IN THE MILITARY you just do your goddamm job anyway. Or get the hell out of the military.

  • 23. Alan E.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:42 am

    There are many other issues that chaplains have to face that are differing from their religious points of view. How do they handle those situations? Tell the person that they are going to hell?

  • 24. Ann S.  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:45 am

    You have to counsel by yourself servicemembers of religions other than your own, too. Get over yourself or get out.

    LOL — "lesbian female". Are there lesbian males??

  • 25. Mandy  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:55 am

    wow just wow there are no words for that kind of conduct. And there are no words for McCain's either willful ignorance or the unwillingness to accept the truth. It breaks my heart for those men and women.

  • 26. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I once dated a man who said that he thought he was a lesbian trapped in a man's body (yes – he was joking). Does that count?

  • 27. Kate  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:58 am

    I knew a man who said that, too. But fortunately I never dated him. (He wasn't joking.)

  • 28. Steve  |  September 22, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Chaplains are required to minister and assist people of all kinds of faiths. The troops they support aren't even necessarily Christians.

    The problem is that, concurrent with the right-shift in politics, the chaplain corps became filled with more and more evangelists. Today, a very large number of chaplains are Southern Baptists. That tells you where these people are coming from. They see the military as a way to spread their specific kind of Christianity.

    In any case, if they don't want or can't to deal with some issue personally, they need to refer them to someone who can.

  • 29. Sagesse  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:02 am

    LLB, they've been ranting about this for months.

  • 30. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Chaplains are COUNSELORS first, and RELIGIONISTS second. They have to be able to talk with and assist people of all creeds. If they don't BELIEVE in a particular faith, they must put their own feelings aside and do their best to assist the person they are counseling. That is what counselors do.

    My father was a minister, not a chaplain, but he understood his job as a counselor of his flock and anyone who came to him for help to be of the same nature. FIRST help the person with whatever problem or issue they have, and worry about their religion after that, and in some cases, don't worry about their religion at all. He took the lesson of the Good Samaritan to heart, a man who was of another faith entirely, who helped out because helping was the right thing to do, not having anything to DO with religion.

    That is what chaplains should do, first and foremost. Some of those soldiers are already living in hell, the chaplain's job is not to heap more hell upon them.

  • 31. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:05 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5LfSJXH2I0

  • 32. Sagesse  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Dave P

    I agree. To me the job is to run an interfaith ministry. Anything less is a disservice to the troops. The chaplains don't all see it that way. All depends 'whose' freedom of religion. Have we heard this argument somewhere before?

  • 33. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Or, you can choose to shame Whitman…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPo7a7B4axA

  • 34. Ed Cortes  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:09 am

    First off, you assume that mccain can be educated! Sometimes, I think that once some politicians are elected, they stop learning.

    Also, does gop stand for geriatric, obstructive politicians?

  • 35. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Having nothing to do with DADT…

    I saw this article this morning on yahoo & am now somewhat disturbed. Justice Scalia apparently doesn't think that the equal protection clause applies to women. If he doesn't think the Constitution mandates treating women as equals under the law, how would he possibly agree that GLBT people are due equal protection? I know his isn't one of the votes we'd be expecting to get if the Prop 8 issue goes all the way to the SCOTUS — but it's still pretty scary that someone sitting on the highest court in the land feels this way.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599202066700;_ylt=

  • 36. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Either that or "gay-oppressing politicians."

  • 37. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:24 am

    If they are in the military, and they don't want to do their job then they should be dishonorably discharged.

  • 38. fiona64  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:26 am

    "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people." — Gloria Steinem

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 39. Ronnie  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:34 am

    If they don't like it….then they can "GO HOME!!!"…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 40. Sagesse  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:39 am

    It's a pet peeve of mine. I also can't stand members of the committee who trash the US allies that permit open service as not being 'real' combat forces, so it doesn't matter. I'd like the 140 Canadians back who've died in Khandahar province.

    Other members of the senate, ok, but not the ones making the recommendations.

  • 41. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:40 am

    OK.. is it TMI to say that I used to date a guy who knew I was bisexual, and once when we were… joined… he remarked that he enjoyed being a man in a lesbian's body?

    :)

  • 42. Kate  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:42 am

    It does give a different image of "in" …..

  • 43. Michelle Evans  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Okay, I have to jump in on this one. Both nightshayde and Kate have made comments concerning people biologically male, but have said that they are lesbian, and that these comments were said with a derogatory bent. Sort of like that "yuck factor" that many people use when talking about gays having sex.

    I am a transgender female. That means that I was through no fault of my own, born with a male physical body, but my brain is wired female–and has been every single day of my life. I was only able to transition and live comfortably as who I truly and actually am over the last several years.

    Many years ago, when going through puberty and finding out who I was sexually attracted to (and long after I had known I was trans, at around the age of 3 years old), I found out that I am attracted to females. I am a female and I am attracted to females, so just like many of you on the P8TT site, I happen to be lesbian. Just because my physicality was not able to match my brain until several years ago, never changed the fact that I am female and attracted to females.

    My point is then that, especially with the people here, whom I have considered my friends for a long time throughout all of the Prop 8 trial, the NOM summer tour, the non-repeal of DADT, and all the rest, that you would fail to understand that maybe what these people said was real, and you should not be expressing your "yuck factor" about a person who might very well have been transgender and also attracted to females.

    I know that most of you don't understand transgender, but I would at least hope you would not mike light of it, or worse yet, make a joke out of it.

  • 44. Kate  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Ouch, which I deserve. And my apologies, Michelle. While I was not thinking of transgendered people when I made my comments, I can certainly see now how it could be seen that way. The man I had in mind did not define himself as transgendered or would even consider the subject (which I did broach to him as a possibility). My impression was that he defined himself as hetero male 90% of the time and the other 10% as lesbian when he was around feminists. Not just around lesbians, but around all feminists. It came across (to me, anyway, and as you point out I could certainly be wrong) that he was working all the incidental-sex-only opportunities he thought might be possible. And that I do find yucky.

  • 45. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 22, 2010 at 4:57 am

    The biggest reason the John McLame does not care what anyone has to say about the true effects of DADT and the associated witch hunts is the very fact that he has his cranium so far up his rectum that all he can see, smell, taste,, touch, and fell is his own stinking excrement.

  • 46. bJason  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Just read this. Thanks for posting, Alan!

    JUST BEAUTIFUL!! I side with the concurring judge in saying that I hope this is the last stop for this case, too. Let this family now go home and celebrate in peace!

  • 47. Kathleen  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:16 am

    NOTICE: For those of you who get email notification of filings in the Perry 9th Circuit appeal, just letting you know the two documents that just came in are routine matters. One (CA9Doc 25) grants Proponents' request to file their oversized opening brief; the second (CA9Doc 26) officially files that brief.

  • 48. bJason  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:19 am

    @ Michelle Evans:

    Thank you for the explanation in your post. The more understanding we all have of each other, the stronger we are. I feel certain no harm was intended. You are very much a friend of and to this group. We stand together!

  • 49. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:19 am

    I am very,very sorry.

    Let me assure you that I meant absolutely no offense at all, and I am very sorry if what I said was hurtful. I wasn't thinking, and you are right, it is something that can be easy to forget, even in this group.

    If it helps any, the incident I mentioned was with a guy who was not at all homophobic, was entirely meant as light hearted, and I intended it the same way.

    I do understand that your journey may be the most difficult for most of us to understand in all of this, and thank you for pointing out when we say something that we are not thinking of as hurtful but may be. As I was the one pushing for a cessation of "fat jokes" the other day, I am embarrassed to be caught out on this issue, and alternately glad to be called on it, so that I will try to do better in future.

    And I should know better. There is a transgendered woman here at work who I see all the time (she works in a different area on my floor). We have lovely chats in the elevator (since that is where I encounter her most of the time), and I would never ever have made a comment about men's bodies and lesbians to her, as I KNOW that would be rude. So, once again, please forgive me.

  • 50. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:20 am

    I'm sorry, Michelle — I certainly meant no offense. I'm totally pro-equality & don't consider transgender people "icky" in the slightest. I can't even imagine how scary and frustrating it must be to feel that you're in the wrong body, much less the nightmares of having to deal with people who just don't have the vaguest clue about the thought processes involved.

    I don't know if it will help or not — but the man I was with who said that did NOT mean it in a derogatory way in the slightest. He was very open about sexuality & is definitely pro-equality. He took it as a great compliment when other men hit on him (and sometimes was rather let down when they DIDN'T). He didn't particularly fit into traditional stereotypes of "straight guy behavior," and tended to feel much more comfortable around women…. so coming from him, the comment kind of made sense.

  • 51. Seraphiel  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:25 am

    How about a compromise?

    They can keep DADT, but for every violation of the "don't ask" part, the DOD gets a 10% cut in their budget.

  • 52. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:26 am

    How about a 10% raise to the people they ask in violation of policy?

  • 53. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Shame and pity.

  • 54. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Thanks, Kathleen! Good to see you!

  • 55. Andrew_WA  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:28 am

    The proper question for Mr. McLame is:

    "If your daughter wanted to serve in the armed forces like her father, would you oppose this due to her being a perceived lesbian?"

    I have not seen any confirmation, but there has been no denial either.

    McLame needs a "Clue-pon" ™.

  • 56. Steve  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:28 am

    They'd run out of money within a few hours.

  • 57. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Oh, AFA. SIGH.

  • 58. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:30 am

    A 10% cut to the DOD budget would hurt them more and make them think faster. Consider that the DOD budget is billions, and the people who they ask are making little better than minimum wage.

    Of course, if we COMBINED the two programs, so the DOD loses 10% and THAT 10% goes to the person asked in violation of policy, we might be on to something!

  • 59. Ronnie  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:32 am

    or how about stop taxing LGBT Americans…or give Americans a say in where their hard earned money gets used?….oh no that would be too difficult…lets just keep on taxing them while we limit their freedoms….meanwhile anti-gays get whatever the f@#k they want out of life like the spoiled selfish brats they are….

    & scene….. ; ) ….Ronnie

  • 60. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:36 am

    I agree.

    I also think that about doctors and pharmacists. Don't want to do your job? Get a new one.

  • 61. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:37 am

    I'm guessing that McCain and others of his generation are not terribly thrilled with women being in uniform in the first place (unless they're nurses like Hot Lips Houlihan) — let alone lesbians.

  • 62. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Pardon me, but would you happen to have any Gay Clue-pon?

  • 63. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:40 am

    I know it's a tongue-in-cheek suggestion — but a cut to the DOD budget would harm the gay and lesbian soldiers who are already serving.

    Perhaps a 10% cut in salary for each person (per offense, naturally) who asks? The offender's 10% could go toward the salary of the offendee. =)

  • 64. Ed Cortes  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:43 am

    With the dearth of evidence they presented, why do they think their volumes of BS will have any impact?

  • 65. Kate  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:48 am

    I love you, Anonygrl!

  • 66. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:50 am

    I like it! Make it so!

    (Yes, ok… I am channelling my inner star ship captain there… I will stop now).

  • 67. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:51 am

    I love you too, Kate!

  • 68. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Is NOM constantly looking for special treatment? Why yes!

    NOM Seeks Undisclosed Spending in N.Y.

    As eyes turn toward marriage equality for New York in 2011, the antigay National Organization for Marriage has filed a lawsuit seeking the ability to spend undisclosed sums of money in key state senate races.

    The complaint against the state board of elections was filed on September 16, two days after the primary election, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, according to a copy provided by the pro-equality PAC Fight Back New York. It reflects a similar effort from the group last year in Maine, where a marriage equality law was overturned…

    …“NOM does not wish to reveal the legislators’ names in this complaint, because it does not wish to divulge its strategy at this early date,” says the complaint.

    More: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/2

  • 69. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:55 am

    If it's Janeway, you go right ahead!

  • 70. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 5:57 am

    I dunno… don't alot of those porn movies involve lesbians in either uniforms or nurses outfits?

  • 71. Ronnie  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:01 am

    They really do NEVER learn that they can't violate the law like this & get away with it….they really have no idea what state they are f@#king with…they really do need a history lesson….The LGBT community of NY is the fiercest & most fearless LGBT community in the entire country…..I will be officially apart of that community come Dec. when I move there…Hello…..NOM…take off your rose colored jesus goggles…the LGBTA community of NYC ousted 2 senators that voted no on the marriage bill….does Stonewall ring a bell? or do you pretend that never happened either because it didn't happen in your stupid little Bible?

    New Yorkers like their information NOM…I suggest you don't piss off people by lying & stealing…because New Yorkers don't stand for that shite…like i said you're f@#king w/the wrong state….. > I …Ronnie

  • 72. Alan E.  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Captain Janeway: "Do something seemingly impossible by changing the just-made-up functions of a recently-made-up part of the ship's system."

  • 73. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:12 am

    If we could just reverse the flow of the anti-gay matter into the congressional chamber, equalize the treatment parameters and swap out the dilithium engagement rings, we might be able to break through the repulsion field, and finally balance the nuptial matrix.

  • 74. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Yes they are called straight men…men who are attarcted to women
    hehehehehehehehehehe

  • 75. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:23 am

    AWESOME!!!!!

  • 76. Linda  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:23 am

    It's not the policy, but it is certainly the common practice; and that suits McCain just fine.

    The problem with repealing DADT has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law, and everything to do with the unwillingness to do what it takes to make those in authority stop discriminating against LGBTs.

    McCain doesn't even want to hear about violations of the current policy. And why? Because he wants that policy to be violated; he wants gays to be harassed, weeded out and discharged. It is of utmost importance to him that the freedom to discriminate against LGBTs remains unchecked.

    A lot of people really enjoy persecuting us; and they will fight tooth and nail to hang on to their right to do just that; even if it means ignoring our Constitution.

  • 77. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:29 am

    It's not exactly Techno-babble. More Equali-babble, I guess.

  • 78. Ronnie  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Why do they target states w/the largest LGBT communities?….I mean really….Cali is a big state & I didn't realize how strong of a hold the religious had on it until coming to tracker…The Cali LGBT community is very strong & has a good foothold on San Fran & LA…as far as I know from reports & friends etc…& their history in the fight for LGBT rights is unwavering…I am in awe of you guys over there…I sort've wish the prop 8 thing happened here….so that we could do the same thing you guys are doing with the courts….NJ is trying but its not the same situation….Stonewall is what makes the New York LGBT community so fierce…they still gain their strength from that…well that & the Drag Queens are even more fierce now then they were then…lol….There is a certain fearlessness that is ingrained in the New Yorker attitude…now add the strength & passion of the LGBT community that has been made even stronger by what you guys are doing in Cali…you are never stronger when your life is on the line & you see others in the same fight getting stronger…NOM doesn't get that…so sad for them…. >( …Ronnie

  • 79. Anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Probably because they are hoping that the states with the biggest "out" communities will also have the most virulent closeted homophobes that they can influence.

    Just my guess.

  • 80. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:34 am

    No, no, no. Those were straight women having sex with other women purely for the amazement and amusement of men. You know — the ugly men who convince themselves that all attractive women fantasize about them. Yes — she LOOKS like she's enjoying her sexual experience with that other woman, but we all know a woman can't be truly sexually satisfied unless her vagina and her husband's penis are in contact with one another.

    /sarcasm *giggle*

  • 81. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:40 am

    The point (at least for the man to whom I referred) was that he thoroughly enjoyed the companionship both sexual and non-sexual of women — but that he didn't fit society's general guidelines of how a straight man should behave. His behavior was much more stereotypically "feminine," without really falling into stereotypically "gay" boundaries.

    Sheesh — our society has some really dumb rules about how men and women are supposed to act. Then again, I suppose many societies do…

  • 82. Michelle Evans  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Thank you all for your apologies and comments. This is obviously something of a sore point with me, so forgive me for jumping in.

    I too, identified as a supposedly heterosexual man for a very long time, at least outwardly, because I knew that if I behaved any differently, I would have my secret found out. Now I look back and wonder how I ever survived long enough to be who I really am.

    One day a couple of years ago, when speaking with a gay man, he said how he had never met a trans person before me, and how he had heard that we can be "fixed," i.e. reparative therapy! I was shocked by his statement, and knew he would have (rightfully) gotten mad at me if I had ever thought to tell him he could be "fixed."

    Thank you all here for being my friends.

  • 83. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 22, 2010 at 6:57 am

    In the words of Al Bundy (Married with Children)
    " I have no problem with two women having sex so long as a man is there to watch"

  • 84. AndrewPDX  |  September 22, 2010 at 7:04 am

    @nightshayde…
    <cite>…the ugly men who convince themselves that all attractive women fantasize about them. </cite>

    These are often also the same 'ugly men' who think all gay men are immediately attracted to them to the point of uncontrolled lust and would just rape these 'ugly men', so they have to make sure to keep teh gayz out of the military, etc.

    I just don't know if that's conceit, arrogance, or megalomania?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 85. Mandy  |  September 22, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Scalia has always been a strict originalist type of judge which I didn't used to mind until he started straying from his originalist theory when it suited his conservative side. While I never supported his originalist type of theory it seemed like he put that before other beliefs. Now that he doesn't I lost any respect that I had for him.

  • 86. Freddy  |  September 22, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Richard, is that a Cranial anal infusion or a anal cranial infusion?

  • 87. Kathleen  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:09 am

    And the newest filings all just have to do with the addition of an attorney for Plaintiffs – in both the "primary" case and the case involving Imperial County. Again, just routine. Any time an attorney is going to represent a party in court, they have to notify the court and the court must officially add them. That's all those are.

  • 88. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Anonygirl –

    Don't apologize, lol. My first thought was "another trekkie trackie!" Geek women unite!

  • 89. anonygrl  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:44 am

    I am a trekkie trackie… its true.

    :)

  • 90. Lewis  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:48 am

    What they really mean is:
    "What I do worry about is what it might mean if a chaplain who had a viewpoint about niggers refused to counsel or work with somebody,"

    Fixed that for you.

  • 91. AndrewPDX  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:49 am

    @anonygrl & Rhie… Trekkie Trackie here too, but I'm not a 'geek woman'… can I still join the fan club? I make a mean gingerbread :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 92. Alan E.  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:59 am

    I am a Treckie Trackie, but only the treckie part because my husband loves Star Trek. I have watched many episodes, but almost none by myself.

  • 93. Josh  |  September 22, 2010 at 8:59 am

    He still won't care. He was flipping out in that video; what a psycho! He's just another liar about GLBT issues like they all are. LIE LIE LIE This whole issue makes me sick.

    This just goes to show our lack of political power. Even with the President and the majority of congress in our favor on this issue, we still can't get DADT repealed yet. I know it's not over yet, but it's just pathetic!

  • 94. elliom  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:02 am

    I had a crush on Picard/Stewart when I was in highschool. He's so debonaire.

  • 95. Josh  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:05 am

    so first mccain says we don't seek out, then when they bring up the case where they did seek out, he says over and over like a maniac, it's not the policy it's not the policy it's not the policy it's not the policy it's not the policy it's not the policy it's not the policy it's not the policy. What fuc**** moron. I hope he can't continue in any political office very soon.

  • 96. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:08 am

    You should listen to this (it's youtube, but audio only). This is a conservative in Arizona discussing McCain vs. Glassman. His words ring true to so many Arizonans. The biggest issue seems to be people don't like to vote over Party Lines…but this guy makes sense, and makes a good case point to crossover.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxey1t2Jsq4

  • 97. Alan E.  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:08 am

    My husband still has a crush on Picard/Stewart. He had a crush on Wesley, too, when he was younger.

  • 98. Michelle Evans  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Ronnie,

    Unfortunately they have indeed been able to flaunt current laws on many occasions. They have been taken to court–and lost–on revealing their contributors. And every time, no matter what the court says, they still have not released one name.

    They have even put out mailers to their supporters telling them that they can insure their anonymity. They don't care a wit what the law or the constitution have to say on this matter.

  • 99. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:32 am

    I'm a deviant despite my sexuality! >:) I really just like thinking for myself and deciding what's really right and wrong rather than let myself be spoon-fed morality like all these whack-job politicians.

  • 100. rf  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:33 am

    You probably have to take sexual studies with a grain of salt–who knows how accurately people report behaviors, but…According to the 2005 CDC study on Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15–44 Years of Age – which was done in 2002:

    "Among adult males 25–44 years of age, …40 percent have had anal sex with a female. Among women, the proportions who have had sexual contact with an opposite-sex partner were similar,as shown in figure 4. "

    – page 2 –

    scrolling down to Figure 4 reveals that the female number for anal sex with an opposite sex partner is 35%
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

  • 101. Sheryl Carver  |  September 22, 2010 at 9:48 am

    It's actually the Cranial Infusion of the Anus. You know, the CIA.

  • 102. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 10:57 am

    Probably. They're also the same ugly men who think that any woman who rejects them must be lesbians — and the same men who wolf-whistle/cat-call at women they've never met, having no idea that their behavior is rude, boorish, and offensive.

    They don't want other men to look at them the same way because then they feel as if they've become feminized.

    I believe it's Fiona who has mentioned a number of times that if you scratch a homophobe, a misogynist will bleed. They're so often two ugly sides of the same wretched coin.

  • 103. nightshayde  |  September 22, 2010 at 10:59 am

    They don't want to divulge their strategy — but then they send out an e-mail blast revealing their strategy.

    o.o?

    Um…. They're not so good with the critical thinking or the logic, are they? (as if we didn't know the answer to that question already)

  • 104. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Andrew – of COURSE lol. Oh and do you have a recipe you can e-mail me (and Richard Walker – he is looking for P8TT recipes!)? Mine always turn out hilly – you know, burned at the edges, not done in the middle :/

    Oh I love Picard and Wesley. Especially since Wil Wheaton (who played Wesley) is an awesome person IRL. His creed is Don't Be a Dick and he really tries to live up to that :)

  • 105. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 22, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    Oh, I have a recipe for Richard. Didn't know he was looking for some. I love cooking! Love food! Love eating! Love grocery shopping! Love coupon clipping…jeeze, I just love cooking!

  • 106. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Yea, he is trying to get a P8TT Family Cookbook together :). I sent him my recipe for stuffed pasta shells.

    Lol I thought I was the only one who loved to clip coupons! :)

  • 107. Rhie  |  September 22, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Yea, he is trying to get a P8TT Family Cookbook together :). I sent him my recipe for stuffed pasta shells.
    Lol I thought I was the only one who loved to clip coupons! :)

    oops meant to post this here not on the other thread. Bah.

  • 108. Hank (NYC)  |  September 22, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    This falls in line with the whole BS of some parents, pastors and counselors alike – can still administer to the worst criminal elments of society but can't handle a gay person. I thought the bible said thou shalt not murder – so how can they give religious counsel to murderers…

    Same with some actors – they can play rapists, murderers, psycho killers etc – but can't play gay. MMM seems very odd to me – just because we see them play a rapist doesn't mean we think they are in real life.

    Chaplains have a job to do – do your job. .. if you can't handle your job – you are the one that needs to do the soul searching – it may be a time for your own epiphany – what would Jesus do moment. I really can't believe he would have sat there trying to help someone yet worried they were going to make a pass at him or by speaking to him his own soul was in jeopardy. LOL

  • 109. BK  |  September 23, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Amen.

  • 110. BK  |  September 23, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Gaaaaa! I hate how anti-equality forces LIE so much!! :(

  • 111. BK  |  September 23, 2010 at 2:58 am

    @Ronnie: :D Lady Gaga's speech rocked.

  • 112. BK  |  September 23, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Thank you, LLB! :)

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!