02/06/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has offered up a proposal to put an end to dismissals under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or at least she is reintroducing the idea. Under her plan, an amendment would be offered to put a halt to funding the dismissals of gay and lesbian service members. The amendment would be put into the Defense Department’s budget. The proposal is not new, but there is some hope for it. In the first ten years that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was in effect, the United States military spent approximately $36 million per year to dismiss gay and lesbian service members. A military based survey of the law’s effects estimated that the military had spent around $20 million per year. In a time of budgetary shortfalls, the fact that this money is being squandered on dismissing able bodied troops and training their replacements who are often far less experienced is a possible selling point. Aside from the bureaucratic costs of replacing each service member dismissed under DADT, there are the varying costs of training replacements and even in recruiting them, and in essence, for each gay or lesbian service member dismissed under DADT, the military has to recruit not only a replacement, but an additional person in order for the military to grow in a time of war.

Senator Gillibrand is hoping that this might be the time to cut off funding in order to get a moratorium in place until a full repeal is passed through the Congress. She had considered a proposal to do this before, but lacked sixty votes in the Senate to get it through. Offered as an amendment, it would require sixty votes to have it removed from the budget bill, and that is not an easy task to do. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the bill that would repeal DADT, may, likewise, be added to the budget bill in order to get it through Congress sooner rather than later. While many Senators may be willing to wait for the military to finish its survey of how to implement a DADT repeal, many inside and outside of Washington would like some form of moratorium on the discharges.

The most common reason given, at this point, for not wanting to go ahead with the repeal is that this would put a strain on the military while they are engaged in combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for those critics, the greater rationale among many civilians and politicians is that the military needs every able bodied soldier available. With the National Guard no longer filling the role of freeing up able bodied soldiers to go to the front, but instead being on the front lines, the military is under a great deal of strain due to low recruitment, loss of life, and disabling injuries.

Senator Gillibrand has been the darling of the New York LGBT Community of late for her strong support of repealing DADT and her support for marriage equality. She is currently gearing up for a potential challenge to her seat. She was appointed to replace Secretary of State Hilary Clinton last year.

Gillibrand Jumps on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Retreat

02/04/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire

“Next thing you know, they’ll be freebasing spinach.”  Last night, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart took on the Senate’s hearings regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Taking on Senator John McCain’s flip on the subject of hearing from the top military leaders regarding repeal of DADT, Colbert noted that we had only heard from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief by noting that “we haven’t heard a peep from the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Chief of Naval Operations, Cap’n Crunch, Major Garrett, Sgt. Slaughter, Lt. Dan, ‘Private Practice,’ or Col. Sanders.”  He forgot that we had not heard anything from Admiral Akhbar or General Mills.  Colbert also went after Senator Chambliss by running old Popeye cartoons.  Though, it should be noted that a sailor without a tattoo seems somehow…astereotypical.  Meanwhile, Stewart and company went after the policy of letting old people serve in the Senate.

The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is heavily backed by the American people.  Polls show roughly three in four Americans support repeal.

The Colbert Report:

The Daily Show:

02/03/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
There are political slogans that work. There are political slogans that fail. There are those political slogans that end up being the butt of jokes for ages to come. “Take Back Illinois” is bound for that final category. Republican Mark Kirk, who is running for President Obama’s old seat, has chosen this to be his slogan. It is a nice slogan. It is bound to help the Chicago and Illinois tourism industry as much as “Take Back Vermont” helped to boost the Vermont tourism industry. Given the economic outlook currently, that would be a very positive step. The problem is, as a slogan it is not really effective.

First of all, take back Illinois from whom? By choosing this slogan Mark Kirk has made it sound like he is trying to take back Illinois from some oppressive dictator. Perhaps he thinks that he is trying to take Illinois back from the orcish forces of Sauron instead of trying to run for elected office in the state of Illinois. Perhaps he is intending on storming the castle and rescuing the princess from the vile dragon and to take back the kingdom from the forces of evil rather than running to be one person among a hundred voting on legislation in the Senate.

A slogan like this might work if Kirk were running for governor. After all, he could argue that he is trying to take back Illinois from the forces of corruption found throughout the Illinois executive; however, is he planning on taking Illinois back from the United States or something?

Take Back Vermont was intended to try and build support to put an end to civil unions in the state. It had a clear objective, and a clear “enemy”, even if the majority of Vermonters thought that the slogan was silly. In the end, Take Back Vermont did more harm to their cause than help as people from outside the state bought souvenirs, and the people inside the state simply stopped buying from businesses which had that slogan up on their shops. In the end, many businesses in the state that supported Take Back Vermont folded because Vermont has enough of an LGBT Community coupled with a strong number of allies that those businesses simply ran out of customers.

Some slogans work. “Yes We Can” worked, at least until after the election. Seriously, however, Mark Kirk sounds like he’s trying to pick up Illinois and take it back home with him.

02/01/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Tomorrow, 2 February, the Senate Armed Services Committee will be taking on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Tonight, on The Rachel Maddow Show, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will be discussing the push to pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which is the bill intended to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and launching a new project to document the stories of those who have been hurt by DADT. According to her press release “We’ve compiled the stories of several servicemembers whose lives have been impacted by Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. There’s also an opportunity to submit stories, so as we get them, we’ll post more. I appreciate any attention you can give this. The goal here is to put names and faces to the policy, to make it real to people and to offer some personal testimony as to why this policy is unjust and should be repealed.” Senator Gillibrand has been the leading voice in the Senate to repeal DADT since she was sworn into the Senate as Senator Hilary Clinton’s replacement.

Gillibrand may be facing a challenge to her Senate seat by former Representative Harold Ford Jr. Gillibrand has received a great deal of support in her bid to win her first Senatorial election from the LGBT Community in New York.

The Rachel Maddow Show appears on MSNBC at 9pm EST. The DADT Story project can be found here.

1/29/2010- by Natasia Langfelder

New York City Council Speaker and out lesbian, Christine Quinn, officially threw her support behind Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today.  At a speech on the steps of city hall, Quinn called Gillibrand a champion of LGBT rights, who would stand up for us on the Senate floor. Gillibrand’s position in the Senate is being challenged by former Tennessee Rep. Harold E. Ford.

Quinn pointed out that Gillibrand’s stance on LGBT issues has evolved, not flip-flopped the way that Ford’s has. Ford voted in favor of former President Bush’s proposal to amend the constitution to outlaw marriage equality permanently in the US. Ford didn’t just vote in favor of this amendment once, he voted for it twice. However, he has since announced his support of marriage equality now that he is trying to garner votes from the large LGBT community in NYC.

Quinn also called Gillibrand the “gold standard” in LGBT representation. Gillibrand has proved this in her explosive press release on January 27, 2010 when she released a statement calling “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” a violation of civil rights. Gillibrand is a politician who has a vision and isn’t afraid to speak up. There has been a feeling of unrest among members of the democratic party, party leaders haven’t been standing up to vicious attacks by conservatives. Gillibrand is someone who stands up for her beliefs and will fight for what she believes in, a better New York.  

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gillibrand tweets… she is meeting with DoD officials today to discuss DADT (lezgetreal.com)
• Mixner Endorses Gillibrand for Senate (lezgetreal.com)
• Gillibrand fires back at Ford (timesunion.com)

01/29/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Representative Ike Skelton believes that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should not be repealed because it would cause too much stress on the military in a time of war. What Skelton never quite answers in his objection to repealing the law is what effect how does loosing thousands of able bodied troops under this law help the military? While some conservative groups are opposed to ending the law, the majority of Americans are in favor of scrapping it. As many as three quarters of those who have been polled believe that it is time to end DADT, as the law is known.

“We’re in the middle of two wars. And I don’t want anything that is disturbing or upsetting to the troops,” the Missouri Democrat said to reporters in Kansas City. Skelton stated that he plans on having a subcommittee hold hearings regarding this issue, but it is not clear when. Senator Carl Levin, Skelton’s Senate counterpart, has already scheduled hearings regarding DADT for 2 February. Skelton is currently the chair of the House Armed Services Committee.

“We ask people to lie about their orientation, serve silently and compromise their honor and integrity on a daily basis. And it’s time for this to stop,” Beth Schissel stated regarding Skellton’s announcement. She was discharged from the military for being lesbian. She and a group of activists and politicians protested Skelton’s announcement.

Many LGBT Americans have been vocally disappointed that President Barack Obama was unwilling to push for a fast solution to discharges under DADT such as issuing an executive order stopping discharges until after the law was repealed; however, they did applaud his mentioning of DADT in his State of the Union speech.

Currently, Representative Skelton is siding with Senator John McCain. Many Democrats, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Joe Sestak are oppose to the law and want Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed. Sestak is a former Admiral, and has testified before his own party regarding the deleterious effects of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is intended to repeal DADT.

Skelton is in middle of debate on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

01/26/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
President Barack Obama seems to be signaling to Congress that it is time to get the lead out on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It follows on the heels of a certain amount of background noise regarding a potential Howard Dean primary challenge to Obama in 2012, and the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to the Republicans. What President Obama will do specifically is yet to be determined. He may move to end dismissals under DADT with an executive order on the rationale that every soldier is needed right now to fight two wars. This move would given Congress time to repeal DADT through the Military Readiness Enhancement Act or MREA. Among the leads on that bill is Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior Senator from New York.

Senator Gillibrand has been pushing to have hearings on DADT for some time. Those hearings, as reported by CBS, have been put on hold until after the State of the Union speech at the request of the White House. Senator Carl Levin has stated as much. The Pentagon came to Levin to let him know that the President was going to be addressing this issue in the State of the Union, and asked him to hold off on the hearings until early February. Levin stated that he did not know exactly what the President was going to say.

While Obama’s and Congress’ reticence to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act has been largely understood by the LGBT Community in this country, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been a major thorn in Obama’s political side. Many LGBT activists feel that Obama’s reticence to repeal DADT has been indicative of a failure to support LGBT rights. Comedian Jon Stewart even compared revoking DADT to eating rice pudding. Stewart even made it clear that this was such a small issue that it was not going to take long to repeal. In a later segment, Stewart and company changed Obama’s slogan of “Yes We Can” to include “But That Doesn’t Necessarily Mean We Will.”

After a year’s worth of chaos within Congress, Obama may also be, with this State of the Union, be planning on pushing to the fore and leading. Many people have been vocal over Obama’s reluctance to lead the charge into the legislative process.

Addendum: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that the subject of DADT will be brought into the State of the Union Speech.

01/26/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Harold Ford was for marriage equality before he was against it and before he was for it. He was for choice before he was against it and before he was for it again. That is, at least, the message behind Stephen Colbert’s take on the recent issue of Harold Ford’s potential run for the Senate. Last night, Colbert made Ford the center of his Alpha Dog of the Week segment. The only thing that Colbert did not mention was that Ford is employed by Bank of America.

1/20/2010-by Natasia Langfelder

David Mixner, a well-known author and longtime activist for LGBT rights, has publicly thrown his support behind Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Mixner posted on his blog that although he was skeptical of Gillibrand when she was first appointed to fill the vacancy left in the Senate by Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has appreciated how she has evolved into one of the most progressive democrats in the Senate. Mixner says of the first time he met Gillibrand,

“That meeting displayed a senator who understands power and is not afraid to use it for progressive causes. In a time when so many of our allies seem willing to roll over and play dead at the slightest hint of a struggle, she is a breath of fresh air.”

 Mixner is right, Gillibrand’s evolution is easy to track. When she was first appointed to the Senate, she was percieved as being the House Rep that was more likely to side with Republicans than with her fellow Democrats. The most pushback she received was from gun control activists. To the average New York City dweller, it seemed as if Gillibrand was a conservative, gun wielding politician who would focus on appealing to conservative upstate NY residents instead of representing the liberal base in NYC. Quickly after she was established in the Senate, she went to work to improve her image. She moderated her stance on gun control to align with the problems faced by New York City dwellers, modified her immigration stance, publically opposed the No Child Left Behind Act and most notably, became a proponent of marriage equality. In fact, Gillibrand’s voting record in the Senate places her among the most liberal Democrats.

Harold E. Ford, a conservative Democrat, is expressing an interest in challenging Gillibrand for her Senate seat. Mixner implores his readers that a vote for Gillibrand not be seen simply as a way to keep someone as disreputable as Harold E. Ford out of the Senate, but as a way to support a strong liberal candidate. Mixner’s announcement comes at an opportune time for Gillibrand, following the defeat of Coakley in Massachusetts. Gillibrand is also endorsed by the HRC. However, NY Governor David Patterson has not officially announced backing either candidate and she maintains a tenuous hold on her endorsement by the Reverend Al Sharpton. At an MLK celebration on Monday, January 18th Sharpton embarrassed Gillibrand by leaving the celebration early, taking Ford with him and leaving her at the event.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does Harold Ford Jr. Have Any Chance of Saving His Anti-Gay Reputation? (queerty.com)
• Laurie Werner: Gillibrand, Ford and the White House (huffingtonpost.com)

01/19/10- by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
As the chaos of the Coakley Senate run comes to the final stretch, the finger pointing has already begun. Problems plagued this campaign, including the arrogance of the candidate who ran a more passive campaign than she should have. Ms Coakley also had other issues, including unwisely wading into sports when it appeared that she knew very little about it. As the Democrats begin to assign the blame, the problem is that they will not assign blame where it is due. Yes, Coakley ran a rough campaign, but there are systemic problems which are not being addressed.

While it is true that Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele is a fund raising disaster and an embarrassment to the GOP, he is not quite the disaster that Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine is. While people are fearful and angry at Obama, Kaine has done little to counterattack those seeking to undermine the DNC brand, and to sink Obama. He let fear hold sway over the August recess, and that fear turned into a situation where a handful of Democratic Senators were able to steamroll the ineffective Harry Reid into all but killing health care reform and exacerbating the situation. Governor Howard Dean did a better job countering the GOP propaganda machine with his own attacks, often from the sidelines. He had strong enough connections to the grass roots community that he was able to bring together a broad coalition of people to counter the Republicans and keep the demoralized party on the ropes. He was able to tap into them while also tempering their expectations, something that Governor Kaine has been unable to do.

Governor Dean, unlike Governor Kaine, was a full time DNC chairman. At a time when it was necessary to protect the majority in the Senate, Governor Kaine was wrapping up his final term as Governor of Virginia, a job which went to a Republican. While the GOP may gripe about Michael Steele’s day job selling his book, few people have really complained about Governor Kaine’s day job.

With two major losses, and a third more than likely on the way, one has to wonder just what kind of a leader Kaine has been, and whether or not the arrogance within the Democratic Party in the wake of Obama’s election lead to a series of losses.

Perhaps it is time for the Obama Administration, which arrogantly rode over the power of Governor Dean’s chairmanship, should be asking him to return to the office that let him turn the DNC into a competitive Party once again.

01/15/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
President Barack Obama is now facing a very real problem in Massachusetts. He rushed there to try and shore up the flagging likelihood that Martha Coakley would, in fact, succeed Senator Ted Kennedy in the seat that he one held. What had once been a sure thing, now looks like it could be a loss. The why is simple. The base is upset and dispirited. They elected President Barack Obama to usher in a new era of liberalism in this nation. Instead, they got a man who was more willing to cut deals than to push what he campaigned upon through the Senate. Sure, he has managed to get almost everything he wanted, but rather than pushing through with health care reform, and pushing it hard, President Obama ceded that fight to the faux grassroots astroturfers who are less about fixing what is wrong, and more about ensuring what is wrong remains broken.

For the LGBT Community, Obama’s lack of spine has been a big problem. Instead of pushing through his promises of getting LGBT issues addressed in Congress, such as revoking Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama has been signaling that he is more than willing to wait for his second term in office before being willing to address those issues. For the millions of gays, lesbians and transpeople, the President’s lack of movement on key issues beyond the Matthew Shepard Act- an act that had to be attached to another piece of legislation in order to pass- has been frustrating in the extreme.

It is there that Massachusetts becomes a problem. Massachusetts is a state with some of the largest numbers of LGBT Americans in the country, and a large number of LGBT allies. The lack of movement on Obama’s part on these issues is discouraging, and many may be unwilling to vote for Coakley because Obama has been so timid when it comes to these battles. In many ways, it will not be the fact that the Democrats went too far with health care reform and financial reform and even the repeal of anti-LGBT laws that lost them this seat, and threatens to make 2010-2013 a legislative deadlock unlike anything this nation has seen in a long time, but rather the fact that the Democrats did not go far enough in pursuing an agenda of popular Progressivism.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi forgot to fight for the people who put them into power, and now they are at risk of being unable to do anything for years to come.

12/26/09-by Paula Brooks
Bucking the ever increasingly hard lined United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, several major Catholic health groups have backed the Senate’s health-care compromise on abortion.

In a statement released last week, Sr. Carol Keehan, president and chief executive office of the Catholic Health Association of the United States said, “The Catholic Health Association is pleased to learn of the work being done to improve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. As we understand it, the Senate intends to keep the President’s commitment that no federal funds will pay for abortions and in addition, provide significant new support for pregnant women.

Sr. Keehan also said that the most important thing that Congress could do was pass a bill that would cover the nation’s uninsured. Because Catholic hospitals, like any hospital, would like to minimize the number of uninsured patients who receive uncompensated care in their facilities and achieve the “extremely important good” of expanding health care coverage to everyone.

“We urge Congress to continue its work toward the goal of health reform that protects life at all stages while expanding coverage to the greatest possible number of people in our country, Keehan said.”

After the Senate vote Thursday, another Catholic hospital group, Catholic Healthcare West, also issued a statement saying… “We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the women and men of the United States Senate for their courageous and historic vote approving national health care legislation.

As a hospital system that cares for a population spanning 20 million people, we know firsthand how important it is to reform our nation’s health care system. We continue to recognize that this job is not yet completed and we urge the Congress and President Obama to continue their work until this task is complete.”

The Senate bill, approved Thursday morning, allows any state to bar the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion and requires insurers in other states to divide subsidy money into separate accounts so that only dollars from private premiums would be used to pay for abortions.

Women’s Reproductive Health Rights supporters said the statement from the Catholic Health Association helped some Democratic abortion opponents accept the Senate compromise.

“We have known for quite some time that the Catholic hospitals and also the nuns are really breaking from these hard-line bishops and saying, ‘This really is our goal: to get more people into health care coverage,’ ” also said Colorado Democratic Representative Diana DeGette.

However, the Asshats… er… I mean… the Bishops have been lobbying to bar anyone who receives insurance subsidies under the proposed health care overhaul from using those subsidies to buy coverage that included abortion. They have declared the Senate compromise “morally unacceptable,” and would rather see uninsured Americans die or in bankruptcy in order to use health reform as a platform for the Vatican’s abortion politics.

The current health care reform bill is “deficient” and should not move forward without “essential changes,” said the Bishops.

At the behest of the bishops, a group of House Democrats lead by Michigan Rep Bart Stupak forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders to adopt such a provision and threatened to block any final legislation that fell short of it. Women’s Reproductive Health Rights supporters have, however, vowed they will block any final bill that includes such a measure.

In a statement to NYTimes.com, Catholic activist Deal Hudson the CHA’s endorsement “utterly offensive”and said… “The Catholic Health Association does not represent the teaching of the Catholic Church….”

12/22/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
It is finally looking as if Kirsten Gillibrand is in the clear for her first run for Senate. Ever since Rudy Giuliani crashed like Eddie “the Eagle” in his his Presidential bid, speculation has swirled around his potential run for the Presidency, the Senate, the Governorship of New York, but the truth is that he would have failed in all of those. In truth, Giuliani’s style may have turned New York City around, but it also angered more than a few New Yorkers in the process. His rather messy public divorce after his second wife found him cheating on her with his now third wife turned many New Yorkers off of supporting him, and while it is possible that he could have beaten Gillibrand for the Senate, it appears unlikely. While Gilibrand is not overly popular in Upstate, she is not well known towards the City. A campaign would have given the people in the City far more of a chance to get to know her, and in the end, she would have beaten Giuliani.

Instead of running for Governor or Senator, Giuliani appears poised to go out there and be a private citizen. He will likely try to mold an image of himself as the hero of 9/11 despite the fact that he was never really that much of a hero. He is responsible for placing the emergency command center of the city inside a building complex which had already been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993.

Had Giuliani run for office again, scandals from his messy divorce to his attempt to get corrupt cop Bernie Kerik to the top post at Homeland Security.

He has endorsed Rick Lazio for Governor. Of course, should Attorney General Andrew Cuomo run for the Governorship, it is likely that even the endorsement of Giuliani would not allow Lazio to win.

Kirsten Gillibrand has been a staunch ally of the LGBT Community with her push to put an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell among other anti-LGBT policies. There are no serious contenders now to block her path to a true Senate victory.

12/17/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
This is what happens when you cave in to one person who is having a snit. Another one comes along and demands that you cave in to him. In this case it is Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska who has decided to kill the bill. The time has come to ‘kill’ him and Lieberman. It is time to strip them of any and all power that they have within the Senate. The time has come to remove them from their committee assignments, and if needs be, the caucus as a whole. It is time to kill this bill. No ‘ifs’, no ‘ands’, no ‘buts’, no negotiation. And, if President Obama cannot learn to lead and Senator Reid cannot grow a spine, then it is time for them to leave or be removed. Senator Nelson has demanded that his amendment condemning women to die for lack of coverage for a legal procedure must be in the bill or he will filibuster. If that is his decision, then fine, remove him from everything. If he leaves to join the Republicans, great, replace him next election. Or replace him anyway.

One year and six months ago, or there abouts, I cast my ballot in the first primary in recent memory where Vermont was important. I cast my vote for Hilary Clinton. While I have held out hope that President Barack Obama would be better than he has turned out to be, I hate to say that he has lived up to my expectations. I voted for him in the general election because I saw in his opponent someone who was even less ready for the Presidency than Obama, and who chose a running mate who, in all honesty, seemed more of a caricature than a real person, especially in light of her transformation from the time she ran for governor to when she ran for Vice President. The why of my vote had mostly to do with History. Senators rarely make good Presidents, and one term Senators often make very weak Presidents. I knew in Obama we did indeed have a John Kennedy. The problem was that no one really goes beyond Kennedy’s assassination to look at the President. Kennedy has never impressed me as anything more than an decent orator. Johnson, at least, had guts. He had scars too and would show them off to anyone who wasn’t squeamish. Ok, that’s wrong, he would show them off to the squeamish as well.

I knew that Obama would not fight the way everyone thought he would. I knew that he would have trouble herding Democrats into doing anything. Obama was good at speeches, but not much else. It is because of that I have not been disappointed in his lack of movement. It is because I knew that Obama was not this great, grand Liberal leader that I have not been disappointed at the immobility of many LGBT issues, and many others. I knew that Obama was more interested in compromise than anything else. It has been painful to watch as Liberals come to the same place I was a long time ago.

Last night, Kieth Olbermann took what looked like and felt like a very difficult step. He called for the death of the health care reform bill and the creation of a new one. Until Senator Nelson made his demands, i was on the fence about this. Now, I am not. The bill must die and, as Governor Howard Dean said, be rewritten. It is time for the Democrats to fight back. It is time for it to be bluntly clear to people like Nelson and Lieberman that there are consequences for going against the majority of their party and the majority of the people. It is time for someone to make Joe Lieberman understand quite bluntly that his desire for revenge is not only unconscionable, but against everything that the Senate has ever stood for. This kind of petty politics is suppose to be confined to the House of Representatives not the Senate. Yet, it is in the Senate that we find more and more people who want to do nothing but hold their collective breaths until they turn blue in the face and then- and then Senator Reid will cave in and give them their treat. If the Republicans want to slow the bill to a crawl, then let them do so. Let there be no other business until this is done. If the government shuts down from their tantrum, then BLAME them. Make it clear that Senators Lieberman and Nelson are responsible for shutting down the government and starving our troops of the funds they need. If they shut down the government, make it clear that the Republicans with the help of Lieberman and Nelson are responsible for doing so. Blame them instead of capitulating. Perhaps then they will come to their senses and realize that compromise can be achieved on issues that they want.

But that is the problem, is it not. This is not about the Republicans WANTING anything policy wise. This is about them wanting power, pure and simple. They want to win the ideological battle that has been going on in this country since it was founded. They want power, and in order to get it they will do anything from lying, cheating and even shutting down the government. I have listened appalled at how the Conservatives spin History into something so out of shape and out of place that they it is unrecognizable. They talk about Our Founding Fathers as if they were some singular block that agreed upon a particular issue, and somehow, some way were of one mind and that mind was for small government without regulations to hold businesses accountable, and without the power to tax people. What they do not say is that we tried that form of government before the Constitution was written, and at that time, the states almost went to war with each other and the central government was so weak that it could not govern even enough to make this nation safe. What our Founding Fathers wanted was a balanced government, and they did not get there by decree or one side winning over the other. Instead, they created a government that was balanced by consensus and compromise. What we do not have here is any of that. The people who claim to speak for the Founding Fathers, or at least in their model of thought, do not any more than any Liberal in this country.

I am not a Liberal, and yet, no matter what I say or do in this blog, I will be branded as such. I am an academe, and that alone gets me attacked by people who have never understood that colleges are as diverse in their political thinking as any place out there. In fact, more so. Of all the colleges I have been to, only one was liberal, and that is not necessarily Liberal, but open minded in its approach to education. I have met professors who would not look me in the eye because I am a transwoman on some college campuses. Distrust Education, Distrust Government, and eventually what you have is anarchy. I often write on this blog in a Liberal manner because, no matter how much I may not be that label, it will be applied to me. That is what Olbermann said last night as well. No matter what he said or did, he would be labeled a liberal for daring to not follow lock step behind the Conservative mantra. When did Conservative become the same word as dictatorship?

You will forgive me if, by now, I am angry with how this has turned out. I had hoped that I was wrong about Obama, and I hate to admit that I was not. For me to be angry takes some doing, but I stand beside my Senator in condemning this mess. I stand beside Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont. In four years, should he choose to stay in the Senate, I will vote for him. It was an honor to hear him speak. Like him, I am angry now too.

I am including the video from Olbermann’s special comment last night. Please, enjoy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Clouds On The Horizon (follow up editorial)

12/14/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Protesters braved snow, rain, and slush to bring a message to New York State Senator Carl Kruger. Many of the signs called Kruger a closeted bigot. It is part of a wider campaign to picket all thirty-eight Senators who voted against New York’s marriage equality bill. The bill, which should have been narrowly approved, instead failed to pass, and garnered not a single Republican vote. The reasoning behind the defeat likely was a mixture of fear over the supposedly growing power of the Conservative Party in New York, the vote in Maine, and the decision by the Republicans to “punish” the Democrats for the mess that the State Senate has been in since the Republicans convinced two Democrats to cross the isle for a short period of time and throw the whole Senate into disarray.

So far, the organizers have already stopped protested in front of Hiram Monserrate, who was recently convicted of beating his girlfriend.

How effective the tactic is will depend upon a lot of factors. The large reason why many of these state senators voted against this bill is that they feel threatened by groups who oppose marriage equality. It is another issue where the Right is more up in arms about it passing than the Left is about making sure that it passes. The problem is in getting the Left to vote for those who stood up in favor of equality and to vote against those who did not. In Vermont, the Vermont Freedom To Marry group is organizing to help defend those who supported the passage of the equality bill this year. VT State Senator Kevin Mullen was one of those who voted in favor of marriage equality, and there will be attempts to unseat him by people who opposed the bill.

One of the major factors which has been a problem with the LGBT Rights Movement is the lack of a focused and organized political movement. This often leaves politicians feeling vulnerable if they vote in favor of the LGBT Community because they do not have the support of an organized group out of that segment of the population the same way that their opponents will from the opposite direction.

Gay Marriage Debate Ends Up on State Senator’s Doorstep

Senator Leahy and Melanie Nathan 6/3/09

By Melanie Nathan:- When I met Senator Leahy, I was touched by his compassion, his sensitivity and his veracity. Most of all he is a champion for equality and as a supporter of UAFA, and has done much for our LGBT binational immigration.   I would like to support Senator Leahy in his endeavors, first and foremost because he has my trust and faith.

On Tuesday Senator Leahy took to the Senate floor and formally filed an amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies and it has already 18 co-sponsors signed on.

In the senator’s words, “I look forward to debating this critical measure during our deliberations on the broader health care reform bill. After all, to bring insurance costs down, we’ve got to introduce more competition in the marketplace — and my amendment will do just that.”

More Senators ought to join to get this critical amendment passed. 

Click here to forward an email to your Senators now — and urge them to support our amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies!

I have not read the amendment but the Senator assures that amendment will introduce antitrust oversight to the health insurance industry, ruling out of bounds egregious anti-competitive conduct like the currently activated and detrimental price fixing loophole which  raises our health costs.  

There will be no real Health Care reform until, inter alia, the health insurance industry is forced to compete on a level playing field just like every other business in America, large and small. In all fairness, consumers must know that the price they’re being quoted is a concomitant of a free and fair marketplace.

The senator in a letter to his on-line community implored our support “That’s why this amendment repealing the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemption is so important — but I need your help, right now, to get it passed.” Call your representatives and Senators to ensure they support the Bill and this critical principle.

11/29/09-by Paula Brooks
A 44 year old, openly gay, Chicago attorney is hoping to fill the Illinois US Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama and hopeful Jacob Meister is quick to point out his sexual orientation is only one part of how he is different from his opponents.

Meister, a graduate of American University in Washington, D.C and the University of Wisconsin Law School, declared his intention to run for the Democratic Senate nomination in September of this year and hopes to eventually fill the job presently held by embattled U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.

Burris has been mired in controversy ever since Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris to the Senate job shortly after federal authorities indicted Blagojevich on corruption charges, including charges Blagojevich allegedly solicited for his personal benefit, the appointment of Obama’s replacement for that seat and allegedly tried to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

Last week Burris received a “public letter of qualified admonition,” from the U.S. Senate ethics committee for making misstatements to investigators in that case.

As of last week’s official petition filing deadline, Meister finds himself keeping company with three other Democratic candidates for the seat’s nomination, including David Hoffman, former Chicago Urban League president Cheryle Jackson and Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.

If Meister were to be elected, he would be the first openly gay member of the Senate, but Meister is considered a long shot. A recent poll found Meister has the lowest level of support among the four candidates current vying for the Illinois Democratic Senate Nomination.

Miester however is not deterred by his poll numbers and has said he is confident a television campaign launched this week, in the Illinois cities of Champaign, Springfield and Peoria, would resonate with voters as he begins to build support around the state and he want to shy away from making the corruption this Senate Seat and instead make his campaign about one of jobs and the economy.

“There’s other people who would like to say that it’s all about corruption,” Meister says in one ad,“Obviously, corruption is an important message, but that’s not the measuring stick we should be using. This is about the economy.”

In an interview with the Edge, Meister said of his chances…

“I think the word ’underdog’ is getting thrown around less and less as I get out there… With the economy and jobs, people are hurting out there and I don’t see any of the other candidates addressing these issues. [When I decided to enter the race], I looked at [it] and said we have to get someone in Washington to address these issues. We don’t need more career politicians.”

“I bring the real world experience that I have developed over twenty years [to this race].”… “I’m not a recycled government employee or bureaucrat or politico. I’m coming to it for the right reasons. I always say there’s a difference between politics and government and unfortunately politics really interferes with good government. I’m about good government.”

via Openly gay man seeks Illinois U.S. Senate seat :: EDGE Boston.

Of course in terms of LGBT issues, Meisters specifically supports the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the passage of a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Meisters has also said he is confident his identity as an openly gay man help his campaign.

“I think it’s actually a strength of my candidacy,” Meister said of his sexual orientation to the Edge. “I think it resonates with Illinois voters as they recognize that this is the civil rights issue of today. Illinois is a progressive state.”

Meister does have a substantial background in government, he was an intern with Milwaukee’s mayor and county executive when he was 18 and also served as a delegate to the Wisconsin Democratic convention.

He has also worked for former Wisconsin Congressman Jim Moody while Meister completed his bachelor’s degree in international relations and political science in DC.

11/21/09-by Paula Brooks
Capitol Hill sources have confirmed to LGR this morning that a planned November hearing by the US Senate Armed Services Committee to consider ending a ban on gays serving openly in the US military is to be postponed indefinitely.

“Yes, we don’t know when that is going to happen,” said an aide from Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin’s office.

In October Levin had said that his committee would begin holding hearing in November and that he hoped to “to find a way to repeal the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” policy.

But, Levin said in an interview on C-SPAN’s Newsmakers program, scheduled to air Sunday, the hearings on any possible repeal of “DADT” will likely happen next year.

President Obama, who has drawn a good deal of flack from gay rights’ groups for not taking steps to freeze or repeal the rule, has said the US Congress is the best venue for undoing the policy, which was crafted in 1993.

Levin’s staffer told us that the committee staff’s have been busy working on issues related to Afghanistan ahead of President Barack Obama’s decision on whether to send more troops. She also said that they have been busy addressing the aftermath of the recent shootings at Fort Hood.

According to the staffer, Levin also stressed in his Newsmakers interview, that the delay necessitated by current events should not be interpreted “as any effort to avoid the hearing” on the subject however. While giving no timetable for the hearings, Levin did say that the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act could be one of the vehicles to carry repeal legislation.

Both the White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are also backing the strategy of using next years defense authorization bill to change the policy on LGBT’s serving in the military according to Capitol Hill insiders.

Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) had earlier this year considered offering an amendment to the 2010 Department of Defense authorization bill that would have suspended discharges, but later determined that she did not have the 60 votes necessary to pass the measure and pulled the amendment after Levin promised that the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on DADT this fall.

No one at Gillibrand’s office could be reached for comment on the hearing delays.

About 13,000 US service members have been discharged under the policy since the policy began in 1993, and estimated costs through 2003 run at 95.4 million dollars in recruiting costs and 95.1 million in training replacements, according to the US Government Accountability Office.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Showdown Between Lawmakers + the Pentagon on DADT Will Get Us Nowhere (queerty.com)
• Senate Puts Off Action On ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ (huffingtonpost.com)

 There has been a recent bevy of co-sponsors signing onto the Uniting American Families Act, the legislation that seeks to provide Lesbian and Gay Americans with the right to Petition for their    same-sex spouses/ partners to live in the USA.  This law merely seeks to place the words “permanent partners” into the existing Immigration and Naturalization Act.   This is no time to let up, but rather imprtant that we make the most of the momentum.   I have 14 couples I am trying to help remain together in the US.  That is a tip of the iceberg.  They are all desperate.  They want to stay together and they want to stay at home. We need UAFA legialstion and awareness of the binational issue more so than ever. Please I am asking for your help.   

Today the news was immense when Senator Arlen Specter sign his support to the Bill.  In June this year  the Senator attended and spoke at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in support of equality in immigration. Now he has put his pen to his word and for that we are grateful.  There is no doubt that the Senator’s Democratic rival, Rep.  Joe Sestak, who is challenging Senator Specter for his seat next year, will sign on as co-sponsor as well. However this will probably necessitate  a campaign promise in the meantime.

From my perspective ANY candidate that signs on to UAFA would earn my vote. That is why Barbara Boxer must beat controversial HP spoiler, Carli Fiorina, the Republican contender for the Senator’s California seat.

In addition I believe that the grass roots effort with our4immigration at the helm of a letter writing campaign seems to be paying off. Activists have put in a tremendous amount of hard work and have strategized to target new representatives each and every week.  The new additions in supporting UAFA include:- Senator Ted Kaufman; Congresswoman Donna Edwards signed on as a co-sponsor
of the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709) which includes UAFA which means she would probably also vote for it as stand-alone legislation.

If you are willing to help this critical legislation passed – please help.  Unfortunately UAFA is not first and foremost on the plat of our activists – it has taken last place to HATE crimes Bill, ENDNA and DADT and worse yet it remains on the back burner for those who believe it will be included in Comprehensive Immigration Reform.   

Here is where we need your help:-

Please take a minute to call or fax Senator Carper’s (202) 224-2441office today and tell them you’d like him to support The Uniting American Families Act (S.424) and support it’s inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform, and please share this with anyone you think might be willing to help.  And also the following  who had signed on to the

All five of the following  members of Congress were past co-sponsors of UAFA, and have still not signed on. We need their support once again, and please remind them that they were past co-sponsors when you e-mail them.  Tell them why The Uniting American Families Act matters to your family, if you are impacted and if not simply tell then you want to know if they will support it now.

Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ-1) Staffer to contact: Mr. Stephen Hunter, Immigration Aide
Stephen.hunter@mail.house.gov;  Phone: (202) 225-6501; Fax: (202) 225-6583; 

Congress Rep  Kathy Castor (D-FL-11) Phone: (202) 225-3376 Fax: (202) 225-5652

Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC-6)  Staffer to contact: Mr. Danny Cromer, Immigration & LGBT Aide
danny.cromer@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-3315 Fax: (202) 225-2313

Congressman Al Green (D-TX-9)  Staffer to contact: Ms. Susie Saavedra, LGBT Aide
Susie.saavedra@mail.house.gov  Staffer to contact: Ms. Renee Mayo, Immigration Aide
renee.mayo@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-7508 Fax: (202) 225-2947

Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS-3)  Staffer to contact: Ms. Sarah Lochner, LGBT Aide
sarah.lochner@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-2865; Fax: (202) 225-2807

 Thanks for your help as always.

Blogged by Melanie Nathan/ Picture of out4Immigration’s tireless footsoldiers.
www.privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
www.visualcv.com/melnathan

Contact: nathan@privatecourts.com

11/12/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
When Representative Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to the Senate to fill the seat recently vacated by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the Senate gained an incredibly strong voice regarding LGBT issues. The Human Rights Campaign has endorsed Senator Gillibrand regarding the next election. As an appointed Senator, Gillibrand must run for office in 2010. In endorsing Gillibrand, HRC President Joe Solmonese stated “Senator Gillibrand has emerged as one of the strongest advocates in the Senate for full equality for the LGBT community. From her personal lobbying of the New York legislature in support of marriage rights to helping garner support for a Senate hearing on repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Gillibrand has time and again stood for fairness for all.”

Senator Gillibrand stated, in accepting the endorsement, “I am very honored to once again have the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign. Equality, civil rights, and equal justice for the LGBT community must be a clarion call for our party and our generation. This is the civil rights march of our generation. We must continue to push every day to repeal DADT, repeal DOMA, and provide equal protections in the work place for all Americans. There is far more support for our cause than people realize. Let’s continue working together to write a new chapter of equality in this country.”

Senator Gillibrand has been a strong advocate for LGBT rights, including being willing to sponsor the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. She is also supportive of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. She added her name to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and to the Matthew Shepard Act.

11/12/09-by Paula Brooks
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced today that she would be holding a press conference with other elected women in Manhattan next Monday. They are expected to speak out against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Introduced by Michigan Rep Bart Stupak as part of a last minute deal to get passage of the larger Health Care Bill, the amendments language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies and will require that women want to continue to receive such services purchase a separate policy rider that covers reproductive services.

Abortion-rights advocates are calling the Stupak amendment a “de facto” abortion ban and have mounted an intense lobbying campaign against it.

Earlier this week, Gillibrand joined the fight against Stupak’s anti-abortion health care amendment and went on the Senate floor, throwing down the gauntlet on saying, “Proposing that women … purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous.”

A Gillibrand spokesman says the Senator will be also be standing up in opposition to the Stupak amendment with other women elected officials, pro-choice leaders and women’s health experts during the press conference.

The event is scheduled for 11:15am Monday, November16th 2009 at 780 3rd Avenue in New York City.

For more information you can call 212 688-9595.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Next Steps on Health Reform, LGBT Provisions & Anti-Choice Amendment (hrcbackstory.org)
• The End of Abortion? Amendment in Health Care Bill Sets Off Firestorm (abcnews.go.com)
• Planned Parenthood To Fight Stupak-Pitts Provision (huffingtonpost.com)
• Human Rights Campaign Condemns Inclusion of the Stupak Amendment (lezgetreal.com)
• Senate Pitfalls on HCR: Do all Roads Lead to Reconciliation? (dailykos.com)

11/10/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
The Human Rights Campaign today released a statement calling for the Senate to strip the upcoming healthcare reform bill of the Stupak Amendment. According to the story that they released “before final passage, a last-minute anti-choice amendment, offered by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), was adopted by a vote of 240-194. The amendment makes it basically impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This will effectively block women from using their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage.”

The amendment has been marketed as being about keeping Federal funds from being used for abortions, but the bill already has that language. The bill, without the Stupak Amendment, would have maintained the status quo on the issue of abortion funding. Instead, this bill goes beyond that. The HRC pledged to work with their pro-choice allies to have the Senate strip this amendment from the bill.

The HRC is also hoping to add in some provisions to the reform package which would directly benefit Americas LGBT citizens. What this may entail is difficult to determine. Likely, this will include the right of same-sex couples to the benefits of their partner.

11/10/09-by Paula Brooks
This afternoon, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York went on the Senate floor and threw down the gauntlet on Rep. Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion health care amendment.

“Proposing that women … purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous,” said Gillibrand, who also noted that in five states that do require such riders, it’s nearly impossible to find coverage for abortions.

“This anti-choice measure poses greater restriction on low-income women,” she added.

“Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is discriminatory and dangerous.”

Standing as an advocate for poor women and girls who will not be able to afford such riders, Gillibrand argues that it would be those poor women and girls who would be especially hard hit as they would forced to delay getting help for unplanned pregnancies.

“Or these women would be forced to return to dangerous back-alley providers,” said Gillibrand.

You go girl….

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Democrats Signed On To Re: Abortion (alan.com)
• Obama: Hyde Is the Limit (dailykos.com)
• Why insurers aren’t complaining about the House bill’s anti-abortion amendment. (slate.com)

11/9/09-by Paula Brooks
President Barak Obama expressed confidence Sunday that the Senate will “take the baton” and approve sweeping health care reform legislation, after the House narrowly passed its version Saturday night.

In brief remarks from the Rose Garden yesterday, the president said the 220-215 House vote brings the country closer than it’s ever been to a health care overhaul and stated the “historic” passage of the House version of the Health Care Bill marked a “courageous vote” for many representatives, given the toxicity of the debate surrounding the bill, and predicted that lawmakers will view the eventual signing of the legislation as their “finest moment” in public service.

“Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people. And I’m absolutely confident that they will,” said Obama.

Conveniently however, Obama made no reference to the Stupak-Pitts amendment in his remarks.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment will prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange, public or private and prevents private insurance companies from receiving government subsidies if they cover abortions.

Many Health Care bill advocates, in an effort to bamboozle woman in to supporting this bill, are currently trying to sell a line of BULL CRAP saying that federal funding of abortion is already covered in current law and this amendment changes nothing.

But this is NOT the truth, as currently most private insurers cover reproductive health related services and that practice would cease if Stupak’s amendment remains in a finalized version of any legislation.

Those advocates are also saying that women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses. But no woman plans for an UNPLANNED pregnancy or one that has serious complications that would ultimately call for an abortion.

Under the mandates of the House version of the Health Care Bill all American citizens will be FORCED to participate, but women who are currently covered with reproductive health services under their current policies will now be FORCED to pay more for those services. This despite President Obama repeatedly saying, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you’ll pay less.”

Right-wingers are hailing the passage of the Stupak measure “as a victory for the pro-life Americans across this country who have flooded Congress this week with the message that abortion does not belong in health care.”

The Human Rights Campaign is taking no notice of at all of the passage of Stupak on it web site and is saying the House Bill “a tremendous advance for the health needs of LGBT people,” conveniently ignoring the fact the “L” in LGBT are women who are being stripped of rights by this “tremendous advance.”

There are rumors on Capitol Hill that President Obama promised Henry Waxman Saturday that he will “personally” work to remove the Stupak language in conference…

From experience… I am sure Obama will “personally” work on Stupak the same way he has so far “personally” worked on the repeal of DOMA and DADT.

Over the weekend I have talked to many in the LBGT community trying to enlist their support in defeating Stupak… Unfortunately most have told me that while they don’t like Stupak and think it is wrong, they are willing to accept Stupak if it gets them a health care bill and a win for Obama ….

Many have told me I need to look at the bigger picture on this issue

Easy enough to say since many of those folks saying this will never have a need of or even the possibility to need any of the services being taken away from women by Stupak. And they need me to pay for THEIR health care.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Strict Abortion Ban Included In House Health Care Bill (huffingtonpost.com)

8/16/09-by Bridgette LaVictoire On 15 August, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont held a town hall meeting to discuss healthcare reform. Vermont is one of the few states in the Union to have a public option healthcare system. Vermont’s public health care option is called Catamount, and it is for the uninsured working. For those without a job but do not qualify for Medicare there is the Vermont Healthcare Access Program or VHAP. The number of people who attended a town hall meeting is estimated at around 500. Two hundred of those were allowed into the Unitarian church on West Street in downtown Rutland, Vermont. The number of people who attended forced Sen. Sanders to alter his initial plans. Originally, Sen. Sanders was supposed to only take questions from inside the church; however, he took questions from both inside and outside the church. He took questions both sides of the debate, or more accurately from the three sides of the debate. Vermont has a strong contingent of supporters for a single payer plan.

Sen. Sanders answered questions from the very small group of people who are opposed to any healthcare reform. This does not, however, represent everyone who was upset with President Obama on the issue of healthcare. Many of those who were opposed President Obama’s healthcare reform package were vocally opposed to the lack of a single payer plan, or were heavily concerned about a lack of a public option given the noise from several Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans; especially given the fact that the Republicans are unlikely to vote for any healthcare reform package no matter what it is.

The disruptions common in most town hall meetings did not occur at the one in Rutland. This was largely due to the fact that there was a very paltry showing of those rabble-rousers and the fact that it is incredibly difficult to drown out Sen. Sanders. His clear loud New York accent could likely be heard in West Rutland, several miles away. This was the first of three town hall meetings being held by Vermont’s junior senator, and one of only two Independent Senators in Congress today. Additionally, the occasion was when a small group on the sidewalk behind the crowd attempted to drown out Sen. Sanders the crowd formed something of a human wall around them, and in so doing reminding them that they were the minority of the opinion that a town hall meeting. However, the presence of several security guards most of them in suits likely contributed to the lack of rowdiness. Still, it did not lead to the silencing of their opinion since many of them were allowed to ask questions.

Due to the lack of ability to answer all of the questions they could have been asked Sen. Sanders had his staff pass around carts that people could use to ask questions that he would e-mail or mail the answers to them. The largest point that Sen. Sanders had to make was that there has been no bill either fully written or voted upon. Currently the bill is being worked upon in the five different committees three of those are in the House and two in the Senate.

Pictures Provided By Lee L.

In an historic move, the US Senate has approved a measure that would significantly expands hate crimes law to cover those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and will make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue hate crimes.

The vote was 63 for and 28 against. The no votes were all Republicans, but five Republicans also voted in favor of the bill, giving supporters the 60 votes they needed and avoiding a filibuster.

“The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes have no place in America,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after the chamber voted Thursday to attach the legislation as an amendment to a $680 billion defense spending bill expected to be completed next week.

In April, the House approved a comparable bill and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it once it reaches his desk.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., first introduced the measure more than a ten years ago. Kennedy, being treated for cancer and unable to attend the vote, said in a statement that the bill “closes the flagrant loopholes that for too long have prevented effective prosecution of these shocking crimes that terrorize entire groups of communities across America.”

Republicans will have a chance to propose several more changes to the hate crimes bill on Monday, but that will not change its status as part of the must-pass defense bill.
The FBI receives reports of nearly 8,000 hate crimes each year. Of those, about 15 percent are linked to sexual orientation, which ranks third after those involving race and religion.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Senate OKs Sweeping Hate Crimes Bill. But Is Obama About to Veto It? (queerty.com)
• Senate Bill Expands Hate Crimes Law (time.com)
• The F-22 v. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill (bilerico.com)

When President Barack H. Obama appointed New York Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton to be his Secretary of State, that left an opening in the Senate that resulted in a strange political show culminating with Governor David Paterson appointing Representative Kirsten Gilibrand to the Senate. Today, LGR has learned that Senator Kirsten Gilibrand is exploring action which would bring the fight over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the US Senate this week. To do this, she is considering introducing an amendment to the Defense reauthorization bill that would call for an 18-month moratorium on the discharge of gays serving in the military.

This amendment would skirt the usually lengthy legislative process involved in repealing DADT. Should the amendment pass the Senate, Capitol Hill insiders say that it would stand a strong chance of being approved in the House and could be signed into law by President Obama by the end of July. Senator Gilibrand is still not final on this amendment, and may not ultimately introduce it.

“Senator Gilibrand is working with Senator Kennedy’s office to garner support for a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and this would be part of an ongoing effort to repeal this policy,” said Gilibrand spokeswoman Bethany Lesser.

Last week, Rep. Patrick Murphy announced he is trying to build support for a bill that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” already introduced in the House. He appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss this issue recently with guest host Alison Stewart.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has become the LGBT litmus test of Obama sincerity to his campaign promises regarding issues impacting the community. During the election, Senator Obama made several statements concerning LGBT rights, and even spoke of being a “fierce advocate” for those rights. This has lead some commentators to label President Obama the “Fierce Advocate”. Obama was unambiguous about ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the campaign, causing many in the LGBT community to question why he has delayed its abolition during his first few months in office.

Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been regularly asked about the DADT repeal in his daily press briefings, and has repeatedly said, “The only and best way to do this repeal the ban is through a durable comprehensive legislative process.” Unfortunately, unlike Representative Murphy, Gibbs has been reluctant to explain the political and legal ramifications of President Obama passing a moratorium on DADT dismissals. Representative Murphy has implied that President Obama could step on many toes in the Congress if he were to try and change DADT through executive action, especially after the way in which President George W. Bush largely ruled through executive order and memoranda.

Senator Gilibrand faces an election for a full term in 2010. Coming from a largely conservative district in upstate New York, she has to try and court the Manhattan and Long Island votes where not only a large portion of the state’s population resides, but the typical voter leans far more liberal than her previous record indicates her support to lie. New York City’s Greenwich Village has long been the center of the state’s LGBT community. Early this year, Lt. Dan Choi came out on The Rachel Maddow Show. A member of the New York National Guard, Lt. Choi is slated to be expelled for being openly homosexual. Senator Gilibrand has become a strong supporter of Lt. Choi, an Arab linguist, and a fierce opponent of DADT. Last month she promised to help repeal the ban.

Until now, Gilibrand has not had the strongest of records on LGBT issues, and is facing a strong primary challenge in 2010 where these issues and the support of the Human Rights Campaign could be influential in her retaining the seat. Many observers on the Hill believe that she is making this move in order to bolster her support from the LGBT community as a buffer against other interest in the state where she has remained closer to the conservative end of the political spectrum.

According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, 69 percent of Americans favor gays openly serving in the military.

“Last year I had an affair,” Ensign said in a statement he read in a televised appearance back home in Nevada after privately informing Senate Republican colleagues.

“I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life.”

Ensign lead failed efforts for Republicans to pick up seats in last year’s Senate elections which left Democrats in control of the chamber with 59 of the 99 filled Senate seats. He ranks fourth in the Senate Republican leadership as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Ensign, 51, indicated he plans to remain in Congress, saying in his statement, “I am committed to my service in the United States Senate and my work on behalf of the people of Nevada.” He is up for re-election to a third term in 2012.

A Republican aide who asked not to be identified noted the hypocrisy of Ensign’s action since the Nevada senator had scorned colleague Larry Craig after the Republican lawmaker from Idaho was arrested in 2007 and accused of trying to solicit sex in a men’s room.

“This is the guy who called Larry Craig a disgrace,”  Reuters reports.

Yeah, this is also the guy who said a lot about the sanctity of marriage. Here’s Ensign’s “Saving Marriage on the Senate Floor” 2004 press release:
“It is not right to mold marriage to fit the desires of a few, against the wishes of so many, and to ignore the important role of marriage.”

Is it right to mold marriage from the perspective of a liar and a cheat? Do you really think that this spineless blowhard believes in “the sanctity of marriage” now, or do you finally see that he was using homophobia to get your votes, money, and power. And why is he suddenly coming clean? Politico has some good clues:

Politico:
“Current and former aides to the Nevada Republican say the woman was 46-year-old Cynthia Hampton
, a campaign staffer whose husband was a top aide in Ensign’s Senate office.

“It was known in [Ensign’s] inner circle that they were involved,” a former aide told POLITICO.

Hampton is married to Douglas Hampton, who, according to Senate records, served as Ensign’s administrative assistant in his personal office from November 2006 to May 2008 — around the same time Cynthia Hampton left Ensign’s committees.

A call to the Hamptons’ Las Vegas home Tuesday night was not returned; in a statement, Ensign’s wife said the situation has “been difficult on both families.”

Douglas Hampton was paid about $101,000 in 2008 and $144,000 in 2007 as Ensign’s administrative assistant. But a financial disclosure form he filed in 2007 and 2008 – required for senior congressional staffers – showed only checking and savings account worth a maximum $30,000 combined.

A review of public records shows that the Hamptons in 2006 took out a $1.2 million mortgage on their Las Vegas home, at an interest rate of 8 percent.

Political insiders in Nevada and in the Senate said that Ensign decided to acknowledge the affair publicly after the husband of the woman he had been seeing asked him for a substantial sum of money.”

Queerty reports on his defense of marriage on the senate floor:
“he “took to the floor of the United States Senate today to defend the sanctity of marriage and urge passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment Act.” He told fellow senators, “Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied. [...] It is not right to mold marriage to fit the desires of a few, against the wishes of so many, and to ignore the important role of marriage.”

So while we feel for his wife and kids, we’re absolutely fine with seeing Ensign dragged through the mud on this.

If he uses his political clout and Senate vote to deny us the right of marriage that he, as a straight person, gets to so flippantly exercise, then he’s just as bad as a gay legislator voting against gay rights. (Need more reason to criticize Ensign? He voted against adding sexual orientation to hate crimes protections.)

Given Ensign’s proclivity for moral missteps, it’s no wonder he was against an ethics investigation into colleague Larry Craig — and yet he was all for Craig resigning. Some things hit too close to home, huh John?

Ensign, who had his sights potentially set on a 2012 GOP run for president, plans to keep his U.S. Senate seat. Hetero sex scandals aren’t as damaging, apparently.”

The Washington Post reports that Ensign was an expected Republican candidate (Isn’t that what everyone left in that party thinks?) for President in 2012:

“Ensign traveled to Iowa earlier this month to speak at a event sponsored by the American Future Fund, stoking speculation that he was interested in running for president in 2012.”

Well, I guess that’s two in the party not running. Dick Cheney, and Ensign. Another thing they have in common: Ensign can’t imagine why anyone would want to close Gitmo. Give me a break guy. And still, I don’t expect to see the fourth most powerful Republican drummed out of office for this, even if it would finally give the Dems that magic 60 vote number, this guy is way too buddy buddy with Reid for it to happen.

Here’s a fun video of Ensign warning us about Liberal Fairness, and how he’s going to bring back “Republican Morals”:

Hi this is Paula Brooks reporting live from the press gallery of the United States Senate…

We are waiting for the results of the Senate vote ending debate on President Obama’s recovery package….

After days of debate and compromise, the Senate has voted today to close debate on the now $827 billion stimulus package.

Republicans resisted this stimulus plan, which, after several new amendments last week, had bulged to more than $900 billion.

Friday a bipartisan deal reached to cut a series of provisions, including $40 billion in aid to states, nearly $20 billion for school construction, and $1 billion for Head Start programs, and got this bill down to $827 billion, a size that is more palatable to moderate GOP lawmakers….

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.

The plans provides for increasing government spending, raising funding for unemployment benefits, food assistance for the poor, and job-creating investments in bridge and highway construction, among other things. The Senate package also included two costly but popular tax breaks not in the House bill, an $11.5 billion measure in the Senate package would encourage the purchase of autos by allowing buyers a write-off for local sales taxes and interest on loans and a $35.5 billion measure would create a new tax credits equal to 10% of a primary-home purchase, up to $15,000.

Compromise notwithstanding, in the hours before today’s vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy.

Today President Obama was in Elkhart, Ind., where unemployment has reached 15.3 percent, selling his plan to the people…. And tonight he will be giving his first prime time press conference…

And the vote is in… And in the end with the exception of 3 Republican Senators it was all a Democratic vote… 61 to 36… 60 votes were needed to close off debate and send the stimulus package to the Senate floor tomorrow for a vote.

Image via Wikipedia

Judd Gregg is not a friend of the LGBT community. He voted for the Constitutional amendment which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and opposed preventing on the job discrimination and expanding hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. But, is there a reason why we should be up in arms about this nomination?

The reality is that the Commerce Secretary is not exactly someone whose political and social views are relevant to governance. The Commerce Secretary oversees economic development, issue patents and trademarks, and gather data on business. They also oversee contracts awarded by the government to various businesses, but those duties are usually overseen by the person who takes care of the individual departments within the Department of Commerce. Those sub-department heads are all appointed by the President independent of the Secretary of Commerce.

There is, however, a silver lining to the whole issue of Gregg being appointed to be the Secretary of Commerce. Indeed there is. Despite the fact that the person being appointed to replace Gregg is a Republican, she is a Republican with several problems. J. Bonnie Newman has never held elected public office. She did serve in President Reagan’s Cabinet as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce. She was also Judd Gregg’s chief of staff for many years. While she is a politician, she has never had to run for an actual office, and this means that running a reelection is going to be a difficult prospect for her given that she is likely going up against people who have run for office before. She already has one opponent who has stepped forward, NH District 2 Congressman Paul Hodes. NH District 2 is the more heavily populated of New Hampshire’s two districts. Hodes defeated incumbent Republican Charlie Bass for the seat in 2006. Bass had been elected to that seat in 1994. In his last election, Hodes won with over fifty-six percent of the vote. Hodes is a veteran politician who should have little trouble winning the Senate seat being vacated by Gregg. Ms Newman is also in deep trouble with her own party. She supported NH Governor John Lynch in his successful attempt to unseat Governor Craig Benson.

It is baffling as to why appointing someone who is so anti-LGBT to the Cabinet may actually be good; however, the fact that this gets Gregg out of the Senate, and puts in place a person who appears to be fairly moderate in comparison. New England is notorious for creating moderate Republicans. These are Republicans who would be Democrats in many Southern states. Ms Newman will be joining Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins (both from Maine) and Arlan Spector (Pennsylvania) as the only real moderate voices left in the Republican half of the Senate. Newman, as Senator, would also be beholden more to Governor Lynch, and even to President Obama who gave her the opportunity to be a Senator than to the Senate Republicans currently in power. She goes in with a clean slate compared to Senator Gregg.

Gregg, for his part, will be away from areas where he can effect LGBT policies. The Commerce Department does not handle anything concerning labor polices, or enforcing labor laws. Those jobs will fall to Hilda Solis, who is waiting for confirmation. Solis, despite being Roman Catholic, is very pro-LGBT rights and has a one hundred percent rating from both the Human Rights Council and the NAACP as well as an eighty-seven percent rating from the ACLU.

Perhaps getting Gregg out of the Senate is not a bad thing overall. Especially since it should be noted that it is relatively are for a Cabinet secretary to last the whole administration.

Sei is a trans-lesbian who lives in Vermont and has a strong passion for LGBTI rights. She has a BA in History and her hobbies include sci-fi, anime, fantasy, action movies, video games, and more. You can visit her Blogger profile here.

A blanket of icy snow covers Vermont’s capital of Montpelier. Through the city threads the ice bound Winooski River.

This was the setting for the day when the bill which would legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Vermont went to the House of Representatives.

Fifty-nine of the state’s one hundred eighty legislators have already signed onto the law, all of the Democrats. Several Republicans have already indicated that they will vote for the bill even though they have not signed onto it. Among the co-sponsors of the bill is Progressive Party leader David Zuckerman of Burlington.

While not a co-sponsor, Republican House Leader Patti Komline of Dorset has stated that she believes this is a civil rights mater and she will vote for the bill when it comes to the floor. The tri-partisan support of the bill is good as it is expected that not all Democrats will support the bill. There are some conservative districts which do vote for Democrats.

Nine years ago, Vermont passed the first civil union law in the country. Following the passage of the law, many of the legislators lost reelection; however, that was a far more contentious time in Vermont’s history. Many Vermonters have indicated that they, if not support, have a feeling of inevitability about the passage of same-sex marriage and just want it to be over, and the political backlash may be minimal. Vermont did not descend into the Earth upon the passage of civil unions, the economy did not collapse, and marriages between men and women did not simply fall into dust as the Christian Right kept saying.

Hundreds of supporters of same-sex marriage came to Montpelier to push for the passage of this bill into law.

One of them, Jamie Reddinger, stated “No one really knows what civil unions are outside of the state of Vermont but everyone knows what marriage is. It’s more than a word to us; it’s about our relationship and validating it.” She was there with her partner Daisy Chamberlain.

In fact, enough people showed up to press Governor Douglas to pass this bill when it comes to him, that they were lined up in the hallway and not everyone could get in to see him. Douglas feels that the Assembly should remained focused on the passage of economic bills, re-licencing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant and rewriting the sex-offender law (which is nearly finished). “I understand what their claim is but I don’t think it’s required or necessary and I think we’re wasting a lot of time with it,” said Republican Representative Andy Donaghy. He is one of the detractors on the bill believing that civil unions go far enough by granting power of attorney and other needed rights. Speaker of the House Shap Smith pointed out that there are more than one committee in the House and that they can easily debate than one bill at a time.

Senator John Campbell of Queechee believes that the bill will pass sometime this legislative session. It is unclear when the bill will be introduced into the Senate.

Currently, the Democrats have ninety-six votes in the House and twenty-three in the Senate as opposed to the forty-seven House and seven Senate votes that the Republicans have. Democrats would need four Republicans or four of the five Progressives to vote for the bill as well as all the Democrats in order to ensure a veto proof majority.

For the House it would require one hundred votes and for the Senate, twenty. The big question is about Governor Jim Douglas, who has stated repeatedly that he believes that civil unions go far enough. Douglas has three options. He can veto the bill, sign it into law, or allow it to pass into law without his signature. He may choose the latter option, especially in the face of overwhelming support for the bill in the General Assembly.

Picture 1- Bridges Over Winooski River
Picture 2- Montpelier With Capital Building In The Distance

Sei is a trans-lesbian who lives in Vermont and has a strong passion for LGBTI rights. She has a BA in History and her hobbies include sci-fi, anime, fantasy, action movies, video games, and more. You can visit her Blogger profile here.