Rainbow Legal Talk

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy Hurts War on Terror

While I don't expect the Bush Administration to do anything about it, one of the results from the Iraq Study Group coupled with other studies have shown that dismissing military personnel simply for being gay has hurt U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. A recent General Accounting Office report has shown that more than 300 language experts, more than 50 of whom were proficient in Arabic languages, were dismissed under the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. See the story at http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10772

The obvious problem is that intelligence is not being processed quickly enough because we do not have enough translaters. (This is actually something which has been shown to be a contributing factor to 9-11 since the U.S. had intercepted messages pertient to the attacks but which were not translated until after the 11th because of a lack of experienced translators.) Another problem with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is that people serving in the military who have been complying with the policy are still being dismissed because they are being outed by other members of the military. This actually has cost the military about $369 million to train new people to take the place of people who have been dismissed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Considering the huge problem of terrorism and the huge gaps in U.S. intelligence, maybe its time to put the interests of national security ahead of institutionalized bigotry against gays and lesbians who wish to serve their country during a time of war.

Brownback's "Gay Apartheid"

Here's a good follow up to the previous post about Senator Brownback's hold on Judge Neff's nomination. John Whiteside called Brownback's hold on the nomination Brownback's "gay apartheid," and he has a point. Any time someone actually has empathy or experience that goes against the Right Wing's desires, then judges and jury members should not be allowed to rule on cases.

"What's next? Someone who has too many black friends can't rule fairly on an affirmative action case? If you're not a Christian, you can't possible rule fairly in a case on separation of church and state? Perhaps no female judges should be allowed to rule on any sex discrimination cases." See the full post at: http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2006/12/sam_brownbacks_new_gay_aparthe.html

The Regressive Right has a few things going for it in its successful campaign of hatred against gay couples, which in turn supplies mountains of cash and votes from people who think they are doing "God's work". The biggest one is that many of their supporters don't know any gay people well enough to sympathize with them, and the media primarily enforces stereotypes that make these right-wingers not want to know them. Brownback's attitude is to misuse government to keep those people who may actually know gay people (and may actually see that they are not the proverbial boogeymen the Right wants them to appear) away from legal decisions.

Yes, calling it gay apartheid is accurate.

Judge denied post because she attended committment ceremony

Talk about wild-eyed, unreasoned prejudice... U.S. senator, presidential candidate and major political opportunist Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) invoked a little-used Senate procedure to block the nomination of Janet Neff as a federal judge. By putting a "hold" on her nomination, he has effectively stalled her becoming a federal circuit court judge. Neff, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge, has been nominated by President Bush to become a federal circuit court judge. Any Senator may put a hold on nominations for many lower-level offices that need Senate confirmation (including circuit court judges) if they feel there is an extreme case. There are no official mechanisms, laws or regulations around this rule, but senators essentially agree to respect these holds because someday they may wish to place such a hold on a nomination.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=10408

So what is the big, egregious affront Judge Neff made that caused Senator Brownback to put his foot down? She attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. Yeah, that's it. She didn't even preside over the ceremony, but because she is friends with a committed lesbian couple, she does not get to be a federal court judge. Probably after getting a lot of strange looks and negative comments over his actions, the Senator partially relented, saying he would release the hold on her nomination if she agreed to not take any cases regarding same-sex marriage.

The movement for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples has been likened to a lower-key version of the civil rights movement for black citizens in the 60s. Imagine this...

In the early 1960s, a Michigan court of appeals judge attends a religious marriage ceremony in Virginia for a black man and a white woman, which is not a legal marriage because at that time Virginia prohibited interracial marriage. The same judge is nominated to the federal bench, but his nomination is put on hold by a U.S. Senator from Kansas because he does not approve of the mixing of the races. After hearing a lot of criticism, the Senator says he'll release the hold so long as the judge agrees not to take any cases about marriage between black and white citizens.

Twenty years from now, remember this post and how absolutely closed-minded and disgusting the views of Senator Brownback will seem then. And this guy is running for President...

Tolerance vs Intolerance in High School

The more they fight, the more they end up exposed as bigots.

An Okeechobee, Florida high school has been the center of a legal storm ever since senior Yasmin Gonzalez tried to start a Gay-Straight Alliance club. If you didn't know it already, the purpose of a Gay-Straight Alliance is to promote tolerance and understanding of gay people. Apparently, tolerance and understanding are not proper values for some in Okeechobee.

See story at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-okee0306dec03,0,4128829.story?page=1&track=rss

The one quote I like most from this story comes from Terri Rubio, and insurance clerk in the town with kids in the high school: "The ACLU needs to go back to Washington, where people are more tolerant, and leave our nice little churchgoing town alone."

The ironic thing is that the law that Gay-Straight Alliances across the country are using in court to get the right to form in public schools was initiated by Christian groups in order to get their prayer clubs formed at a time when some schools were afraid of violating the separation of church and state by having these clubs. The law was formed to allow these "out of classroom" clubs as long as all other such clubs were allowed to meet as well. I guess it's true; "be careful what you wish for."

Gay marriage in Canada threatened by conservative Parliament

Welcome back to the issue of gay marriage being used as a football in politics. This time, I'm talking about Canada. Apparently the ruling conservative government wants to revisit the law that allowed marriage between same sex couples even though it is clear that banning gay marriage is out of step with the majority of the country. Check out the story at http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-11-30T002053Z_01_N29405021_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-SAMESEX-COL.XML

Gay marriage... uhh... I mean civil unions... in NJ

The NJ Supreme Court recently handed down a decision which is forcing the state to allow marriage for same sex couples within six months or some other system allowing equal rights. Now the legislature is not debating whether or not to allow equal unions for gay couples, but whether or not it should be called marriage. NJ's highest state court ruled 4-3 to forced the issue in late October and turned it over the legislature. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102500174.html)

While the decision looks like a razor-thin court decision for NJ partners, it was actually an overwhelming win. Some of the justices that voted against the decision did so because they thought nothing less than full marriage rights would solve the inequities. Now, while the NJ legislature is struggling with what to call the relationships (with "civil union" leading the pack), conservative groups are still fighting to deny equal rights for gay partners. (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-28-gay-marriage_x.htm).

Here's a novel idea... why not stop the state from issuing marriage licenses? Isn't marriage supposed to be a religious, spiritual institution? Why not have the state issue civil union certificates for any adult couple that wants it and then let the churches decide who does or does not enter into what is supposed to be a holy union?