To Give or Not To Give to the "Not-So-Bad-Guys"

The line has been drawn in the sand.

For months now, the growing discontent between the DNC/Obama Administration and the LGBT population has been boiling, and not so much under the surface. But with America Blog's announcement on Monday of the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" DNC donation boycott, the tension has erupted.

Though many have already decided not to give to the DNC, and big names demonstrated their annoyance by declining to attend the DNC LGBT fundraising dinner after the infamous DOMA brief from the DOJ comparing same-sex relationships to incest, this is the first organized action where people will sign their names and pledge not to give.

But for how long?

We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.

And why now?

Joe Sudbay and John Aravosis give a long list of reasons to do this now, some of which I agree with, some I don't. But a majority is undeniable fact and reading the list sure stokes the embers of anger I've been feeling for some time.

I believe the tipping point came when Obama refused to acknowledged the ballot initiatives in Maine and Washington and the controversy that erupted when the DNC sent a pre-election email out to supporters telling them to support Democratic candidates, but failed to mention the LGBT issues. Even worse, the email went to Mainers urging them to go to New Jersey to help incumbent Gov. Corzine keep his office. (He didn't.) The email did not urge Mainers to vote NO on Question 1 nor to volunteer for the campaign.

So who's behind this boycott, or a more accurate word, "pause"?

Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, and soon others.

It’s really more of a “pause,” than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends – President Obama and the Democratic party – who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.

News of the pause has burned up the internet since the announcement yesterday and already many more are joining up.

Long-time activist David Mixner, who originally made the call for the National Equality March, said on his blog today, "How many times has the LGBT civil rights movement been told over and over and over again to wait until after the next set of elections? Do they really believe we are that dumb? That we don't realize that politics and elections change can change the political complexion of a nation overnight? We know that in the near future we will not see a time again when we will have sixty Democratic senators and a comfortable margin in the House. What makes our Democratic leaders think it will be better in 2011? Won't we be told then to wait until after President Obama is re-elected?"

"This craziness has to stop and it has to stop now," Mixner continued. "This is not about politics, it is about freedom and justice."

Emmy Ruby-Sachs wrote on the Huffington Post:

...for gay voters, the two party system is particularly offensive. Republicans are outwardly horrible on gay issues and the bulk of the gay vote will, automatically, go to Democratic candidates. There are no alternative candidates ready to take a stand for equality and thus, there are no consequences for Democrats when they fail to promote the equal rights agenda.

-------

It's a scary thought: taking dollars away from the not-so-bad guys only helps the really bad guys on election day. But the boycott has its timing right and that might make all the difference in this fight: there is still an opportunity for the Democratic Party to take concrete strides towards eliminating the legal discrimination against LGBT Americans before the campaign dollars really matter. If they show progress, the boycott (or the "pause" in fundraising as AMERICAblog calls it) will end.

I think the freeze in fundraising is a great idea. I also think the problem with the gay rights agenda in Congress has more to do with the political system than the particularly spineless nature of most Democratic representatives.

Even more surprising, the HRC, which is usually not for rocking the boat especially when it comes to the Democrats, has given "tacit endorsement" says David Dayen at Fire Dog Lake.

Asking them what they thought of the pause, HRC responded to Dayen, "Individual donors should always make their own careful assessments of how to spend limited political contributions. We all need to focus on the legislative priorities identified by AmericaBlog and with whatever tactic individuals decide to employ, the ultimate objective needs to be securing the votes we need to move our legislative agenda forward."

So if you want to put some good ol' grassroots pressure on the Democrats, go sign the pledge "Don't Ask, Don't Give."

Maine News: State Leaders Counter Out-of-State Lies; Optimism Builds for Win; PFAW's Report on Religious Right's Campaign of "Lies and Big Money"

OK. My head is spinning. So much is happening in Maine, it's hard to keep up. So I'll keep my own words concise (hard for me, I know) and let the news read for itself.

On Wednesday, the pro-marriage equality NO on 1 campaign responded within 24 hours to the anti-LGBT Yes on 1's first ad with a counter ad of their own. Not to be outdone, the Yes on 1 issued a press release in response on Thursday.

In a misguided attempt to avoid discussion of legitimate issues raised by the proposed legalization of homosexual marriage, the No on Question 1 campaign has misfired, accusing legal scholars – including a prominent supporter of same-sex marriage – of engaging in “fear-mongering, lies and distortions.” The scholars are on record of pointing out the inherent legal conflicts between the rights of people who sincerely oppose homosexual marriage and the rights of same-sex ‘married’ couples if homosexual marriage is legalized.

“Unfortunately for Jesse Connolly and the No on 1 campaign, the shot they thought was aimed at us instead has ricocheted and is now squarely lodged in their own foot,” said Marc Mutty, Chairman of Stand For Marriage Maine, the official Yes on Question 1 campaign. “One of the legal scholars they dismiss as ‘liars’ includes Professor Douglas Laycock, a prominent scholar who supports homosexual marriage. In their desperation to avoid the legitimate discussion of serious issues raised by the legalization of homosexual marriage, the No on 1 campaign has wounded itself and done a great disservice to the people of Maine.”
-------
“The conflicts that LD 1020 creates for people of faith are real and serious concerns. Respected legal experts on both sides of the issue agree on this. It’s time for the No on 1 campaign to acknowledge these concerns and address them, rather than simply dismiss them with vitriolic campaign rhetoric. The legal scholars, including those who support same-sex marriage, are not part of our campaign. They have raised important issues that the people of Maine are entitled to know about. We intend to make sure that they do,” said Mutty.

Unfortunately for the Yes on 1 campaign, the People of the American Way issued its report that same day, "Outside Religious Right Groups Targeting Marriage Equality in Maine With a Prop 8-Style Campaign Based on Lies and Big Money."

Part of their press release on the report states:

People For the American Way issued a report today that documents how the Religious Right is targeting marriage equality in Maine with big money and false attacks, virtually identical to the fearmongering strategies in 2008's Proposition 8 campaign in California.

"The fight to protect marriage equality in Maine hasn't gotten the same national attention that Prop 8 did in California, but national Religious Right organizations are pouring resources into their anti-equality effort," said Peter Montgomery, Senior Fellow at People For the American Way. "The far right is determined to deny equality to same-sex couples in Maine, no matter what it takes. Fortunately, a smart Mainer-led campaign is mobilizing support for the state's marriage equality law and the families it will protect."

In the press release, they state that national anti-gay leaders and veterans of last year's Prop 8 battle in California descended on Maine; that the right-wing is not interested in running a "fact-filled" and "honest, civil and respectful campaign," and are instead choosing the low road of fearmongering and false attacks; and the money has poured into the campaign against marriage equality in Maine, with more than 99 percent of the early money coming from four organizations, and less than 1 percent coming from Maine voters.

Here is the full four-page report:
PFAW Report on Religious Right Wing Campaign in Maine

To make matters worse for the Yes on 1 campaign, today actual Maine leaders, unlike the out-of-towners used by the opposition, have responded with their own full rebuttal to the campaign's attack ads. The nine page response details the fallacies claimed by the Yes on 1 campaign in their tv and radio ads and then proceeds to point out the lies.

Maine Legal Rebuttal to Yes on 1 Ads

Polls released today from Maine show marriage equality opponents with a two point lead, but this lead falls within the margin of error, thus indicating both campaigns are in a dead heat.

Markos from the Daily Kos, which issued the polls, reports:

The forces of bigotry have a 2-point lead, but it's within the margin of error. This thing is statistically tied. It's a toss-up. It's a battle between the side who can best bring out its supporters to the polls. And it's a battle to persuade that tiny percent of undecideds to vote for equality. In fact, millions will be spent by both sides to bring that 6 percent home. You can help the "no" side protect marriage equality by contributing here.

The demographics are a mixed bag -- men aren't with us, but women are. Democrats are obviously a strong demo for us, and with 9 percent of the undecided coming from their ranks, that's a positive sign. Independents lean our way, but it'd be nice to grow our margin there, since Republicans will be motivated to turn out, and they'll provide the bulk of the bigot vote.

Young people are strongly with us, older folk aren't. Who are the more dependable voters? We can't take anything for granted on that front. Getting out the youth vote will be imperative for the "No on 1" campaign.

Joe Sudbay of America Blog responded to Markos:

We always knew going in that this was going to be a battle til the end and getting out our vote will be critical. In Maine, that will determine the winner. I've done Get-out-the vote in Maine many times. The people working on our side really know how to do it. And, I mean really know how to do it . . . we're going to make history there.

Jesse Connolly, the NO on 1 campaign's manager also responded to the polls, saying "To take the lead, it's going to take money, volunteers, an effective media strategy, and an unparalleled get-out-the-vote operation."

ACTION: So what are you waiting for? Help win marriage equality!

Obama Administration Defends DOMA Again by Filing to Dismiss Powerful Federal Case Against It

UPDATE: Pam's House Blend reports on an email from GLAD: "So, at this point we have 14 days to file an opposition to the motion dismiss. The government will then file a reply to our opposition. After that, our first hearing will be scheduled, and we can expect that to take place early next year. Having said all of that, it's possible that both sides will get and receive extensions on that schedule."

Obama's Administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act again by filing a brief today seeking a dismissal of one of the strongest federal cases against the discriminatory law, Gil vs. the Office of Personnel Management.

Joe Sudbay of America Blog reports:

...the Department of Justice is defending DOMA with an array of legal arguments. Importantly, the DOJ thinks DOMA should be subject to the "rational basis review,' which is the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. All the government must do is prove a "rational basis" for the legislation meaning "a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reason- ably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard."

The brief does reiterate Obama's opposition to DOMA.

As the President has stated previously, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.1 The law of this Circuit requires that this Court find that DOMA is constitutionally permissible because Congress could reasonably have concluded that DOMA is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.

2009 09 18 DOMA DOJ Motion to Dismiss

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who filed the case, issued the following press release:

The Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss today in Gill v. Office of Personnel Development, GLAD's lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD's Civil Rights Project Director and co-lead counsel in Gill, said "Nothing in the government's brief addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states' determination that people are married. Obviously we disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that's a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection."

Gary Buseck, GLAD's Legal Director said, "We're seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can't get on their spouse's health plan, for parents who can't file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children's education or family emergencies."

"There is nothing in the brief that we are unprepared to deal with," added Bonauto. "We're pleased that the issues have now been joined and the case is moving toward resolution, because every day, an increasing number of families - not just our plaintiffs - are being harmed by DOMA. We're confident in the justice of our cause and the strength of our case."

GLAD filed its challenge to DOMA Section 3 in U.S. District Court on March 3, 2009, and filed an amended complaint in July on behalf of 8 Massachusetts married couples and 3 widowers who have been harmed by the law. In July, GLAD scored its first victory in the case when the State Department changed its passport name change policy and plaintiff Keith Toney was for the first time able to get a passport in his correct, married name.

Gill has been described as "a carefully planned case quietly underway in Massachusetts federal court [that] could be the gay marriage test with the greatest national impact" by the National Law Journal. More information on the case is available at www.glad.org/doma. The DOJ brief can be read at http://tinyurl.com/gill-doj-mtd .

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization devoted to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

I find it striking that the Department of Justice (DOJ) used the rational basis argument given that recently, the proponents of Proposition 8 just filed a motion for summary judgment to avoid going to trial on the federal case against the initiative. One of their arguments rest on the rational basis argument (which relies heavily on past rulings and tradition), stating that gays and lesbians are not warranted heightened scrutiny (which requires evaluation of found facts and witness testimony to determine if a law harms or helps state interest) - a stark disagreement with the California Supreme Court ruling in the marriage cases which classified gays and lesbians as suspect, putting us in the same category as race and gender among others.

This article, by a supporter of marriage equality, examines an Constitutional argument, not a policy argument, of rational basis and how that approach is beneficial to "traditional" marriage. It's an interesting look at the difference between rational basis arguments and heightened scrutiny approaches.

And don't worry. I'm not a legal scholar, and I'm able to follow all these legal arguments and documents. It's just important that we understand how our rights are being analyzed and argued in court. The rational basis vs. scrutiny conflict is key to how our rights are won.

VIDEO: Daily Beast Speaks to Sen. Gillibrand About DADT Hearings; Rep. Hastings Tells Maddow White House Blocked DADT Amendment

Action around Don't Ask Don't Tell has been heating up at the capital. Having been so wrapped up with the Leadership Summit and all the marriage equality news around the nation, I haven't had much time to report on the issue. However, here is a quick video recap with links to accompanying stories.

The Daily Beast talks to Sen. Karen Gillibrand about her unsuccessful attempt to temporarily suspend the enforcement of DADT and her wonderfully successful move to hold the first Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the law since its passing in 1993.



In the House, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) speaks to Rachel Maddow about how the White House undermined his efforts to pass an amendment that would put an end to funding DADT investigations, a tactic that American Blog says ". . . Republicans have used for years to stop funding of programs they didn't like. For years, Republicans blocked federal funding of DC's domestic partnerships and needle exchange. I'm not sure if this was the best approach, but, sometimes, the only way to make progress is to use (or abuse) the appropriations process. But, a funny (or not so funny) thing happened on the way to the Appropriations bill mark-up. In his own words, Hastings was pressured by the White House and others to drop his amendment."



Also from America Blog:

Last night on Rachel Maddow's show, during her interview with Rep. Alcee Hastings, she read a statement from SLDN's communication director Kevin Nix. I got a copy of the statement. Kevin says a lot here:

We hope it’s not true the White House pressured Rep. Hastings to withdraw his amendment to stop funding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” investigations. Such a move would go against President Obama’s commitment to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now, we need to see some positive action, some follow through from this White House. The Commander in Chief has a key leadership role in ending this bad law. He should publicly endorse the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), that overturns DADT. The President and Congress need to get on the same page and same timeline in ending DADT and both need to act with a sense of urgency. Service members are getting fired literally every day just because they are gay or lesbian, and our national security is at risk because we’re losing some of the best and brightest linguists, medics, pilots, and intelligence analysts under this archaic law.

So, as far as those who know can tell, there's been nothing from the White House. SLDN needs "to see some positive action, some follow through from this White House." They haven't seen any yet. If SLDN doesn't know what the Obama administration's plan is, the plan doesn't exist.