At our GayPatriot LA dinner last night, a reader told me that earlier in the day she had heard conservative talk radio host Mike Gallagher, a staunch opponent of gay marriage, call or the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), the Clinton-era policy banning gay people from serving openly in the military.

It’ll be interesting to see if, in the coming days, any of the gay groups highlight Gallagher’s support of gay people serving openly in the military.  The Service Members Legal Defense Nework (SLDN), perhaps the least partisan of the gay organizations, did issue a release yesterday touting a Gallup poll showing that a majority of conservatives favor gays serving openly in the military:

Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and Republicans (58 percent) now favor repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, up 11 to 12 percentage points from 2004.

While my reader reported that many of Gallagher’s listeners called in to criticize his position, in coming out against the ban, he does represent a majority of conservatives.

Let us hope gay leaders reach out to Gallagher and get him to speak out more often on this issue.  They may not like all of his stands, but he may be able to do something to help repeal the ban.  And he does have credibility on the right and, as from what I understand, among the military.

This goes to show that just because someone holds a position at odds with the gay establishment on one issue doesn’t mean he will disagree on every issue.  “Opinion,” as Michael Barone obseves,”is not arrayed on a single dimension, but flies all over the place in two or three or even four dimensions (which is to say it changes over time).“  And so it is on gay issues, where someone can oppose state recognition of gay marriage, yet support the open service of gay men and lesbians in our armed forces.

Let’s hope gay groups give Gallagher some credit for publicly speaking out against DADT and find ways to work with this outspoken conservative to repeal that gratuitous legislation.

I’m not able to get much into this today as I’m getting ready for vacation (more on that later).

But I did want to get up a post so everyone can comment on today’s SCOTUS/DADT development.

Supreme Court Rejects DADT Challenge - Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

More to come….

UPDATE: Chris Geidner has this to say at Law Dork 2.0:

So, today’s action was not a decision on the merits of the case; the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

What’s more, the decision, particularly coming right now, likely tells us little about what the members of the Court actually think about the constitutionality of the policy.  Why?  Because a justice, say Justice Ginsburg, might believe the policy is unconstitutional but could vote against cert because she was uncertain of the Court’s other members’ views and did not want to risk losing the argument.  Additionally, with the Court is in the midst of a personnel change, I’d think we’re unlikely to see many high-profile, likely 5-4 outcome case, cert grants before a new justice takes the bench.

<…>

In short, I don’t think that this is a case that anyone should want to be the Supreme Court challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Chris also points out there was a weird legal path for this suit in its journey to SCOTUS.  But you will have to read Law Dork 2.0 to catch up on that!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bill Quick offers the best succinct defense of these patriots I have heard to date, “Gays in the military have a greater respect for the liberties America offers than do those who hate them, and refuse to extend those liberties even to those who fight and die to preserve them.“

Shouldn’t we want more such soldiers serving in our armed forces?

I’m blogging from the Ft. Lauderdale airport and a report just came over Twitter from a gay media organization. I’m hoping one of my co-bloggers can find out more.

But the gist is that the Defense Department says there are no plans to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

GP readers: Feel free to link the articles in the comment section if you find out more…

So… “Hope and Change”?

Or more empty Obama promises to The Gays?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  I want to thank Glenn for this unexpected (but not unwelcome) link; it has led to one of the best comment threads we’ve had in some time.  So, thank you Instapundit Readers for contributing to a spirited, thoughtful and civil conversation!

Every once in a while, I read a comment from a civil critic which helps me put my own worldview into perspective.  Responding to Average Gay Joe’s post linking a Podcast Interview of Lt. Daniel Choi, reader CR  did just that:

I have to honestly confess my surprise at how supportive the GP bloggers have been of Choi. I’m particularly surprised given that, as a moderate who is somewhat to the left of GP-residents, I actually don’t have a lot of sympathy for him. 

His surprise made me realize that while I consider myself conservative, on some issues, I’m to the “left” of my party and even to the “left” of some of our critics.  I put the word, left, in quotation marks because sometimes the traditional “direction” of our partisan politics just plain don’t work.  When I have written about Lt. Choi, it just didn’t occur to me that someone might perceive me to be departing from principles I had put forward on this blog.  (To be sure, I was aware that I am at odds with many in my party on the issue).

I’ve always supported a strong military, opposing restrictions, generally coming from well-meaning liberals, which decrease its effectiveness.  And that’s how I see the ban on gays serving openly.  It serves no purpose, save to placate those holding on to long discredited prejudices against gay people.  And it deprives the military of qualified personnel.

Perhaps I’m more sympathetic to Lt. Choi’s outspokenness on this issue because, as a gay conservative, I see the benefits in being open about one’s sexuality.  Coming out in right-of-center confabs has allowed me to see how my conservative confrères react to a gay man in their midst and to show that not all gay people subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxy of the far left.

In a similar manner, I welcome Lt. Choi’s openness.  He provides yet another example of how ably a gay man can serve in our armed forces.

(more…)

You can measure a politician’s principles by his willingness to do something which he believes to be the right thing, but which carries a political cost.

Before he was ever elected President, Ronald Reagan did just such a thing, showing political courage in standing up against anti-gay bigotry.  In 1978, he came out publicly against the Golden State’s Briggs Initiative which would have banned gay people from teaching in public schools.  At the time, that pernicious proposition led in the polls.  Not just that, the Gipper was gearing up to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1980.  Opposing that initiative would have hurt him among social conservatives, then beginning to migrate to the GOP.

And yet gay people prefer Bill Clinton to the Gipper, even though when that Democrat had the choice between keeping a promise he made to us during his successful campaign for the White House (repealing the ban on gays in the military), he cut and run because of the political cost.  Unlike Ronald Reagan, when it came to gay people, Bill Clinton showed no political courage.

And now where does the current President stand?  As Andrew Sullivan, dewy-eyed for the Democrat during the campaign and well into the first hundred days of his Administration, is now beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.  He’s figured out who the rubes are.  And it ain’t the true gay conservatives who backed John McCain.

The left-leaning blogger laments:

But I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away. (more…)

Kudos to CNN for featuring Lt. Daniel Choi on its American Morning program.  The more people see this great American, the more they’ll see the folly of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy barring gay people from serving openly in our nation’s armed forces.

As you may recall, Lt. Choi is a West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran about to be dismissed from the military because he came out publicly as gay.

In his letter to the President, this soldier writes:

My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.

Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

Here, we have an American who wants to serve his nation and help protect his fellow citizens.  His very record shows him to be qualified.  His colleagues don’t find his sexuality a detriment to his service.

He asks the President not to fire him, telling his commander-in-chief that he loves his job:  ”I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.”

We should want more men like Lt. Choi in our armed forces.  But, DADT means that we get fewer.  Repealing this law would strengthen our armed forces by increasing the pool of qualified men and women from which they could draw.  Not just that, it would save the military from wasting time rooting out gay service members when it could be training them to better defend this great nation.

While lumbering through traffic in West Hollywood and Westwood earlier today, I pondered my (then-)most recent post, wondering if Democrats would suffer any political fallout from their failure to push repeal of the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy banning gays from serving openly in the military.  And I realized that they wouldn’t.  They have nothing to gain politically by repealing this silly policy.

Republicans also have little to gain politically by repealing it.  Can you imagine gay activists and organizations rushing to support Republicans because they acted in the interest of our nation’s military by overturning a policy which allows for the discharge of competent service members?  C’mon, these are people who refused to praise then-Vice President Cheney for providing an example of how all parents should treat their gay children.  Only one gay leader (that I am aware of) commended him for including his daughter’s female partner in public events.

Just as many gay organizations won’t support a gay-friendly Republican, almost none of them would abandon a prominent Democrat who doesn’t help them on a key issue, even one who backs a law they strongly oppose.  The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

They didn’t abandon President Clinton then.  And they won’t abandon President Obama now.  For the Democrats, there’s no political cost for inaction on DADT.

When gay groups march in lockstep with the Democratic Party, they limit their leverage over its leaders.  Democrats know that the gay groups activists aren’t going anywhere.  They’re far too politicized.  Unlike libertarian-leaning GOP activists, they won’t sit home on Election Day if they feel betrayed by their party.

It’s the gay groups’ slavish advocacy for the DNC which delays a move on DADT.  Just as with gay marriage, national Democrats have nothing to gain, but a lot to lose if they move to repeal DADT or recognize same-sex mariage

(more…)

While it’s clear that there’s a national security cost to the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) ban on gays serving opening it the military, I’m not sure I agree with the folks at the Palm Center (which has done a lot of good work exposing the folly of this policy) that there is also a political cost to repealing this Clinton-era law.

Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior researcher at the Palm Center and author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, believes President Obama

 . . . apparently took the wrong lessons from the 1990s fallout with gays in the military, believing that Bill Clinton’s error was moving too quickly.  In fact, it was not Clinton’s speed, but his delay, and the appearance of a weakened resolve, that allowed his opponents to rally and defeat him. . . . With the firing of First Lieutenant Dan Choi, the costs of the gay ban delay are beginning to register with the public and the media.

While I agree that the firing of Lt. Choi hurts the military, I don’t yet see a public fallout over his dismissal.  Maybe if more people were aware of his skills and his record, they might see the folly of DADT.  To that end, I comment MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for inviting  Choi on her program last night.  It would be nice if other media would similarly feature this honorable American.

The more people see this man and hear his story, the more they will question the wisdom of DADT and the easier they will make it for their representatives and the President to act to repeal the ban.

That said, I disagree with Frank’s contention that there is a political cost to delaying repeal of DADT.  I just don’t think this issue registers with all that many voters.  And that is unfortunate.  Those who support repeal and lean left won’t desert the Democrats for not acting.

The main issue is to give politicians cover for acting. And to do that, we need show why the ban is not in the national security interest of the United States.   (more…)

After Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran who is fluent in Arabic has announced on national TV that he is gay, he is about to be dismissed from the military.

Over at the Huffington Post, Aaron Belkin,Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at University of California at Santa Barbara, contends that President Obama can block this good man from losing his job in our armed forces:

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.

He’s right.  The more we see gay people serving openly, the easier it’ll be to repeal the ban.  And from what I read about Choi, he does seem to be the kind of guy we would want to have in the military.  

If this study is accurate, then let’s hope White House Counsel Greg Craig reads it, so he can use it to help draft the rationale for an executive order suspending implementation of DADT.  Someone, I think, people will challenge their interpretation of statute and may sue to ensure Choi’s dismissal (and so provide another piece of evidence of the folly of DADT).

Let’s just persuade Congress to repeal this silly law so our military doesn’t waste resources removing good men and women from our armed forces.

(H/t:  Glenn.)

With the House passing H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (by a 249-175 vote), gay groups are cheering.  I guess the White House is too; the President had urrged Congress to pass this bill.

While I don’t share the view of social conservatives that such legislation could target churches, I do share the concern of libertarians, particularly legal scholars, who don’t like this bill because it targets thought. It enhances penalties for violent crimes not on their degree of violence, but on the thoughts of the attacker.

If someone beats you up because he hates your sexuality, gender, religion or ethnicity, his punishment is greater than if he beats you up because he doesn’t like you personally, hates your hair color, social standing, appearance or outfit.

While gay groups cheer today a bill that will make little difference in anyone’s life (I have yet to see any research showing that such laws deter violent crime), they should be working harder (as at least one gay group is doing) to repeal a law which has an adverse impact every day gay men and women eager and willing to serve and protect our nation.

The Democratic Congress has delayed consideration of legislation repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).  The passage of Hate Crimes legislation and the delay of DADT repeal is just a sign of the Democrats’ attitudes toward gays.  A lot of symbolism, very little substance.

Repeal of DADT could make a real difference in the lives of a good number of gay Americans while increasing the pool from which our armed forces can draw recruits.  Hate Crimes laws do little more than make people feel good that Congress cares about them.

We should all be very suspicions of legislation whose primary goal is to make people feel good.

UPDATE:  This legislation is more problematic than initially indicated:

HOUSE APPROVES FEDERAL HATE-CRIME EXPANSION BILL. Jacob Sullum comments: Aside from the usual problems with hate crime laws, which punish people for their ideas by making sentences more severe when the offender harbors politically disfavored antipathies, this bill federalizes another huge swath of crimes that ought to be handled under state law, creating myriad opportunities for double jeopardy by another name.

Barney Frank says Democrats are punting on repealing ˜Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) Until 2010.  Looks like the folks at GOProud were onto something when they pointed out that so far, “Democrats have spent no political capital on moving on important election year promises such as the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell“.

Frank explains the reasons for the delay:

I believe we should and will do ˜Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” next year. . . .  We haven’t done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation.

It does seem Frank, a key player in the passage of DADT sixteen years ago, has learned from Bill Clinton’s fumbling of the issue early in his Administration.  That Democrat President so quickly clumsily pushed repealing the ban on gays in the military that he agreed to the pernicious compromise of DADT to save face.

I agree with Frank that we do need a “lot of conversation.”  Let’s hope though that he’s not the one leading it.  We need people with long records of support of the military to speak out in favor of repeal.

They can better show why it is in our national interest to repeal the ban.  It increases the size of the pool from which our armed forces can draw recruits.  And it saves the military time and money.  Instead of rooting around in the private lives of soldiers, they can better train them to serve our nation and protect their fellow citizens.

Study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing open service of gay people in the military will not compromise the effectiveness of the armed forces.  A number of nations have allowed gay people to serve openly in their armed forces without undermining unit cohesion.

While I agree with Frank that we need begin this conversation as a preparatory move to Congressional consideration of repeal, I think it’s a mistake to wait.  We can start that conversation today.  Congress can start moving the legislation tomorrow.

(more…)

While study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing gay people to serve in our armed forces would neither compromise unit cohesion nor morale, the Obama Administration is making little progress on repealing the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, barring gays from serving openly in the military.

This despite candidate Obama’s commitment to repealing the ban.  Indeed, White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor said recently that the president has consulted Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff] Chairman Mike Mullen to make sure “this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and national security.”

This weekend on FoxNews Sunday, however, Gates said, “That dialog though has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.”

Pushing it down the road a little bit?  Say what?  I do hope the gay organizations are lambasting the Democratic Administration for putting this off yet again.

Here’s a simple solution to push it down the road, but head in the direction of repeal while making it clear that the change strengthens our armed forces and national security:  With great fanfare, the president should announce a blue-ribbon commission, say, headed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to study whether we can repeal of the ban and strengthen our armed forces.  Yes, I realize their study would repeat studies already carried out.  But, none of those have had the attention one so publicly commissioned would have.

(more…)

As I clean out my e-mail box this afternoon, I realize (yet again) that I need blog more regularly on repealing the ban on gay people serving openly in the military (i.e., Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell or DADT).  This issue, the one clear case of federal discrimination against gays, should be the top priority of gay activists.  And not just because it’s good for gay people.

It’s good for the military as well.  By making it more difficult for gay people to serve, DADT deprives the military of tens of thousands of citizens who would otherwise eagerly serve our country in the armed forces.

And study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing gay people to serve openly would not compromise unit cohesion or morale, a criticism frequently leveled by those who favor the ban.  Whenever I speak with members of the armed forces (nearly all of them straight), they all tell me they’re aware that some of their colleagues are gays; they don’t see their sexuality as a hindrance to their service.

Earlier this month, Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara which, for the past decade, has focused “on sexual minorities in the military,” began a speaking tour to promote his new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.  In the course of his research, Frank found that military and political architects of the policy acknowledged it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”

So, as activists lobby Congress to overturn the ban, let us hope they focus on what Frank learned in writing his book–that it undermines the military and weakens America.

Kudos to Rep. Tauscher for introducing this legislation and at least getting the ball rolling.

It is precisely the sort of knife fight no president wants to get into, especially in his first 100 days. But it seems that President Barack Obama is about to get dragged down the same dark alley as Bill Clinton when he was forced to confront the highly charged issue of gays in the military early in his term.

On Monday, buoyed by a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation to overturn the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, a Tauscher aide said.

Clinton’s handling of the issue was widely condemned, and the entire fiasco became a textbook example of the sort of avoid-at-all-cost political controversy that can seriously undermine a new president. For Clinton, it knocked him off message, sapped him of auathority, damaged his popularity ratings and left him with a reputation for being wishy-washy that stuck.

And it left the military with a policy that no one really likes — the “don’t ask, don’t tell” regulation that allows gays to serve in the military, as long as they don’t flout their homosexuality.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this tactically and politically.  There have been very mixed media reports since November on if and when Obama would tackle DADT.

There is a discussion at Pam’s House Blend on this development.   Feel free to join, and bring those folks over here, too!

Maybe I should post a count-up clock on how many days since Inauguration until DADT is repealed?  Does anyone know how to build such a widget?

[RELATED: First DADT litigation faces Obama Justice Department]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

An excellent op-ed in today’s New York Times by Owen West, a Marine and veteran of the Iraq War. Some highlights:

Originally posted at my blog, Average Gay Joe…

I finally had the opportunity the other night to watch the Johnny Symons documentary Ask Not on gays serving in the military under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Last summer the guys at Gay Patriot and I had the privilege of doing a podcast interview with Symons and a few of the “stars” of this film, including Jarrod Chlapowski, Alexander Nicholson and Al Steinmann of Servicemembers United.

Where Symons does his best work in this film is with the excellent interviews of gay veterans. One of the finest examples is with “Perry”, a gay soldier serving in Iraq. Because of the DADT policy his identity had to be concealed but he had some of the most moving scenes in the film, including at the end. The scenes with Chlapowski, Nicholson, Steinmann and Fred Fox during their Call to Duty Tour were compelling, especially with their personal stories of military service as well as their efforts to engage the public on repealing the ban against gays. If this documentary convinced me of anything, it is that the work of these men to bring about change through constructive dialogue while maintaining the obvious respect they have for the military, which I share, has a far greater chance of success than ill-advised publicity stunts. More on the latter in a moment. While all of these veterans had very interesting stories I found myself most identifying with that of Fox, probably more because although I do not know him and we served in different branches, our enlistments were roughly at the same time in the early 1990s. I’ve been impressed with Fox from previous interviews I’ve listened to and the material in this film reinforced this. I enjoyed the “personal stuff” about all of these men and it strengthened the documentary in putting a human face to gay veterans, as well as challenged ridiculous stereotypes.

The weakest portions of this documentary were where Symons included footage of events with Soulforce protesting the ban against gays. The anger and need to “take action” I can understand but the effectiveness of their efforts is highly doubtful. In the film they came across as spoiled brats with little or no understanding of the military, let alone respect for the organization they claimed to want to serve in. The most glaring example of this is in one scene where Soulforce protestors take advantage of a Marine recruiter who treated them well, only to have them “invade” his office when his back was turned. All of this was done just so they could get arrested to make their point. Putting aside the stupidity of inflicting these kinds of stunts on persons having zero control over the policy, Congress makes the laws after all and not the military, if this Marine recruiter had any sympathy for gay servicemembers before this incident one wonders how their poor behavior may have changed that. I could have done without just about all the scenes on Soulforce, with the possible exception of the brief interview of one female Navy veteran discharged for being a lesbian. I would have liked to see her interviewed more, like the others were, outside of the Soulforce nonsense. Barring that, Symons should have found other gay veterans to interview who are also working against the ban like Pepe Johnson of Integrity in Service. This would have been more in keeping with the rest of this film and far better than the material with Soulforce. Gay veterans instead of gay activists.

Probably the most surprising to me watching this documentary was how quickly the anger I had at former President Bill Clinton (D), the spineless coward who signed DADT into law, and Congressional politicians from the early 1990s, like former Senator Sam Nunn (GA-D) and his asinine “investigations”, came rushing back. The nonsense from DADT proponents in this film only made it hotter. Yet where Symons excelled, thanks to many of the “stars” mentioned above, was taking that anger and focusing it towards constructive means. Overall I’d say this documentary was well-made and I’d recommend that anyone interested in this topic, see it for themselves.

A very interesting interview I came across yesterday with Captain Steve Hall (USN - ret.), a gay veteran and former nuclear submarine commander. Hall is involved with USNA Out, a group for LGBT Naval Academy alumni. He is also the driving force behind a new documentary film, currently scheduled to premier in Summer 2009, about LGBT Naval Academy alumni and the DADT policy banning gays from openly serving in the military. This film should do much to highlight the service of these vets and I’m very encouraged by what he said about this project in this recent interview:

“When I was a midshipman, there were no gay or lesbian role models,” he said. “All we ever heard was when someone was kicked out.”

He hopes the film will help people see that gay service members exist and have achieved great things, and that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy - which requires gays in the military to hide their sexual identities or risk expulsion - is a “folly.”

“This is another way to tell our story and unveil the masks of who we are. We need to educate our fellow alumni and anyone who will pay attention,” said Jeff Petrie, the founder of the gay alumni group USNA Out, who has agreed to be interviewed for the film. “When I look back at how other minorities were treated in military history and how far we’ve come with how those people are now part of an integrated team, I know the same will be true for us one day. And I want to take advantage of every opportunity I can to move that along.” [...]

While some alumni - particularly those who were kicked out - are bitter about what happened to them, that will not be the focus of the film, Hall said.

“I’m going to do everything I can to make sure the alumni look great. We’re all products of the academy, and the academy does a really good job of developing people’s character,” he said. “I don’t want to show dirty laundry.” (Baltimore Sun)

Now this sounds like a film that is respectful of the service and one I definitely won’t miss.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy — a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.

The secretary’s job is a civilian position, so it would not run afoul of the ban on gays serving in the military, but it would renew focus on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office… (Washington Times)

Very interesting news. White serves as Chief Operating Officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation and is on the Board of Trustees and Executive Committee of this worthy group as well as the Fisher House Foundation. He also is involved in many other charitable efforts and has been for years. While all of this is definitely praiseworthy, I’m not sure how this would make him qualified for the job. Still, he does sound like someone I’d find to be an excellent candidate to appoint to something were I the president. The fact that he’s gay is intriguing considering DADT. Were he to become SecNav, it give more push to repeal the ban against gays serving in the military. Elaine Donnelly and other DADT proponents have good reason to be afraid of the possibility.

The question remains, however, will Obama give White the nod or will it be someone else? We shall see. Regardless, it is very encouraging to know that White is backed by many retired senior officers. My, how times have changed…

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Thanks to GP reader Sean A for this hat tip, worthy of a lead post today….

EXCLUSIVE: Obama to delay repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ - Washington Times

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

“I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.

Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held “informal discussions” with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.

Once again, the lilly-livered Gay Left gets punched in the face while their tongues are firmly up the backside of the Democrat Party Establishment.

High-larious politics…. yet very disappointing, however predictable, from a gay rights policy perspective.

Just HOW many issues does the Hypocrite Rights Campaign and their fellow gay comrades have to lose before they are just laughed at and completely ignored??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): Uncanny, yet again. I had seen this news as well and intended to blog on it to show Obama’s pusillanimity and his indifference to gay issues despite the enthusiasm the gay groups offered for his candidacy and campaign. Not just that, this is probably the one issue facing gays where the tide has clearly turned in our favor. If handled properly, we could repeal this discriminatory and gratuitous legislation. Looks like I’ve have to do a followup on that last point.