Lesbiatopia

Tomorrow will mark the first Congressional hearing to evaluate the continued viability of the U.S. military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since its inception in 1993.

Much has changed in the way of public opinion over the past fifteen years. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) no longer appears to reflect the attitude of the majority of American citizens.

In sequential polls (1993, 2001, 2008), conducted jointly by The Washington Post and ABC News, participants were asked, "Do you think homosexuals who do publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?" In 1993 only 44% of those polled answered affirmatively. The number rose to 62% in 2001 and has continued to rise to a decisive 75% in the most recent poll conducted last week.

In the meantime, recruitment and retention demands have increased markedly over the past several years as our military leaders strive to fulfill the personnel requirements created by our current overseas campaigns. Honorable, qualified gay and lesbian servicemen and women are discharged daily for no reason other than their sexual orientation, while other weary soldiers’ tours are extended and they are recycled to combat zones again and again.

In light of these developments, DADT has garnered a second look by members of Congress.

The Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee will consider arguments both for and against the policy at 2 PM tomorrow in a hearing which will be open to the public. (The hearing will be held in room 2118 of the Rayburn House Office Building on Independence Avenue in downtown DC. Those who wish to attend are encouraged to arrive early and be prepared to wait.)

Tomorrow's hearing is the first stage in response to a bill, H.R. 1246 or the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” introduced last February by Senator Marty Meehan (D-MA). The bill, if passed as is, would replace the DADT policy with one of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Representatives from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) will be present to offer statements in support of the bill. Although it is unlikely that a repeal of DADT will occur during the current administration, it is quite feasible in the near future depending on which of our current Presidential candidates is successful this November.

How do the candidates feel about this issue?

Senator John McCain believes that we should maintain the status quo.

He was quoted recently by the New York Times as saying, "Generally, overall, it’s working… I think it’s logical to leave this issue alone. I really do.”

Senator Barrack Obama has stated repeatedly that he would like to see DADT repealed.

In a statement released last month in correlation with annual Pride celebrations around the country, Obama is quoted as saying, “Let’s repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and demonstrate that the most effective and professional military in the world is open to all Americans who are ready and willing to serve our country.”

Read More......

MAGICALLY UNCOMFORTABLE SQUIRMINATION



IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT VIDEO CLIP IN JOHN MCCAIN'S THOUGHT BUBBLE: WHY DON'T THESE WHORES GO BACK TO GOOD OL' FASHIONED WIRE HANGERS IF THEY WANT TO SIN AGAINST GOD AND JUST SHUT THE #@*$ UP ABOUT THE WHOLE THING ALREADY??

THE LESBIAN COMMUNITY--PROUD BOYCOTTERS OF VIAGRA
(SO FAR AS I KNOW)

COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN
GUEST-HOSTED ALL THIS WEEK
(PERHAPS LONGER?? PLEEEAAAASE??)
BY DR. RACHEL MADDOW
MONDAY-FRIDAY ON MSNBC
CHECK LOCAL LISTINGS

LISTEN TO
DR. RACHEL MADDOW ON AIR AMERICA RADIO AND AFFILIATES
3-6PM PST
(WHEN DR. MADDOW IS NOT BEING THE BEST HOST OF COUNTDOWN EVER)

P.S. CHRIS HAYES OF THE NATION ROCKS TOO

Read More......

Over on Current TV, debate is hot over a State of Wisconsin law that says if a same-sex couples from Wisconsin goes to California to get married, it is a criminal offense that threatens them with a $10,000 fine or up to 9 months in jail (or both) if they do marry in California.

This law was passed decades ago, says it is illegal to enter into a marriage outside the state if that marriage is not legal in Wisconsin and was enacted to prevent underage couples from crossing state lines to marry.

In 2006 Wisconsin voters passed a constitutional same-sex marriage ban; gay marriage is not legal in Wisconsin.

But up till last month this law was not really a problem for Lesbians and Gays in that state because the only state that had gay marriage was Massachusetts. Their law essentially has a caveat in it that says same-sex marriages preformed in Massachusetts are only legal outside the state of Massachusetts if that state also recognizes same-sex marriage. In other words, if I got married in Massachusetts, my marriage would only be recognized in California.

California’s marriage law has no residency requirement for marriage and has no “good only in California” caveat. The May 15 ruling opened up marriage to all same-sex couples no matter where they live.

It has also opened up a big door to challenges for other states anti same-sex marriage laws under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, or more commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause mandates that states within the US have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states.

Now, the religious right-wing fundamentalists in Wisconsin are pointing to the underage couples law, stating it should be applied to Gay and Lesbian couples residing in Wisconsin as a way to stop them from marrying in California and by doing thereby prevent these Constitutional challenges.

Same-sex marriage opposition in WI is out in full force hoping to accomplish just that.

Most of the pro-law supporters in the Current TV debate seem to think this law is a fair way to handle the problem. But they are mostly justifying their positions by saying things like, “Gay Marriage is an abomination to God”, “The Bible says it is wrong”, “God hates Homosexuality” and that being Gay is “a threat to religion.” What I see going on here in this debate is the “religiously affiliated” want laws to officially codify their religious beliefs. They seem to have forgotten there is and should always be a distinct separation between church and state.

There is such hatred of homosexuals in this country and it all seems to be come from religious zealots who believe that the only rights anyone should be afforded are the ones they believe in.

Religious Right leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and D. James Kennedy have often claimed that they offer the mainstream vision of America. Their own words, however, demonstrate a radical world view far removed from the values of most Americans. Over the past two decades, their rhetoric and agenda have been shrill, divisive and extreme.

Being gay should not be viewed as a threat to anyone’s religion, gay or straight, and that all people should be treated with the same equal basic human rights like anyone else. We all pay our taxes, live by the laws that are governed to us and do our best to live up to a respectable moral code.

Gays having the same rights as everyone else will not affect any one religious affiliation more than another; more people will not become gay, more people will or will not go to church, the social fabric will not be destroyed and the cathedrals will not fall.

Religious groups take widely varying stands on issues such as marriage and human sexuality. It is imperative that the government respects American diversity by not imposing one tradition’s narrow view of marriage and sexuality on the entire country.

The problem with doing this is that our country is comprised of so many different religious groups and political affiliations that to have one dominant religious influence mandating the laws of our country is downright unfair.

Even among the LGBT community or the Editorial Staff at Lesbiatopia for that matter, there is not agreement on religious beliefs or how the Bible should be perceived.

I hold a Doctorate in Classical Humanities and have made it my life's work to study ancient cultures and their myths.

In my opinion, the Bible is a fictional tale, based on relevant events at a period in history when the Bible was written to explain natural occurrences that the writers of the Bible had no explanation for and The Bible should not be rendered as an entirely historical or factual piece of literature anymore than say the Iliad should.

Renee, on the other hand, believes that the Bible is based mostly on truths and past events, but that there is a strong need for Americans to find their own path of spirituality and not base life choices on exact quotations from one book and one book alone.

But both Renee and myself however believe some Christians have continuously mis-quoted passages from the Bible to their advantage, especially when arguing against homosexuality, thus creating an overwhelming sense of hypocrisy on their part in our eyes when they ignore other passages of the Bible that even they cannot abide by.

One such example of this Bible misinterpretation we have found is highlighted extensively and with much success in the documentary film For the Bible Tells Me So, which brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture – and reveals that religious anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a misinterpretation of the Bible.

But most importantly we both agree what we really need is a strict line of demarcation between church and state and the single greatest threat to church-state separation in America is the movement known as the Religious Right.

We feel organizations and leaders representing this religio-political crusade seek to impose a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on all Americans through government action and they represent very serious threat to every American and their basic freedoms.

In final, it doesn’t matter what any religious group feels or thinks about homosexuality. It is not their place to lobby for such a law as the one being debated in Wisconsin because it fits into their religious beliefs.

We feel they need to remove their religious affiliations and go back to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution; that which seeks to provide a fair, just and non-religious mandate and all US states and territories must to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states, not the just the one the Religious Right agrees with.

We support the American’s United for Separation of Church and State position that says the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, established religious liberty -- the right of individuals to worship or not -- as a defining American value.

This separation protects us from undue religious influence in government and undue government intervention in religion and private decision-making. We feel that the wall separating government and religion is being eroded, and so is our right to make personal decisions.

And we probably will see you in the Supreme Court before this debate finally ends.

Read More......

Historically when times are not good in this country the blame tends to fall on the party that holds the White House.

With the terrible economic news of factory closings in the heartland, and numbers on home foreclosures, joblessness and gas prices heading upward everyday, many folks in this country are feeling pretty dissatisfied.

According to a recent Pew Research poll measuring the attitudes of the middle class, for the first time in 50 years of polling, a majority of Americans believe they are falling behind economically.

If you add in the extraordinarily un-popular, mismanaged war in Iraq, that in essence was started under false pretenses by the current Republican Administration, (one strongly supported by Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain,) things are not looking all that rosy for the GOP this fall.

In 1933 Adolph Hitler wanted to pass this thing called the “Enabling Act” that fundamentally abolished the German Constitution and made him the “Fuhrer”. But with the German economy in the toilet and with no perceptible strategy to fix it, he was really not all that popular. Most people in Germany saw that his only agenda was to secure power for himself and the Nazis. So with only about a 30% approval rating with the German People, his political future did not look all that bright.

To make his position secure Hitler had some of his boys head over to the German Parliament or Reichstag Building and start a little fire that he blamed on the “others” to get attention away from he fact that he was not doing his job all that well….

His plan worked, conservative voters who had no time for Hitler’s crap before the fire felt threaten by “the others” now and voted him the powers he needed to become what he in the end became. As Hitler knew, it is a pretty well accepted the more conservative an individual is, the more concerned they will be about being able to control their environment and he played that card.

In 2004, Republican strategists effectively borrowed a page from Hitler’s play book. Saying they wanted to protect children and families, they used the "specter" of gay marriage, “gay others” and our “gay agenda” and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment to divert voter attention from a war that was not going all that well at all and via same-sex marriage bans on 11 state ballots they managed get enough conservative voters out to the polls to retain the White House in that election.

The Federal Marriage Amendment, also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The most recent vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage. The Senate has only voted on bringing debate to a quick end with regard to the proposed Amendment.

The Republicans know the economy is tanking. As well,they know the war in Iraq has turned into an endless morass, and many of their traditional supporters are feeling things are getting pretty out of control in this country. Consequently, not really having an effective plan in the offering to fix these concerns, it seems Republicans are getting out the matches and are trying to light up the Gay Reichstag fire one more time.

Saying the FMA was urgent and necessary in light of the recent California court ruling that could potentially force gay marriage on states that don’t want it, last week Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, (who’s voting record in the Senate is in lock step with the current administration,) re-introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate for the first time since it stalled in the House nearly two years ago.

Referring to California and that states lifting of its same-sex marriage ban, Wicker said in a statement …

Invariably, couples from that state will now move to states like Mississippi, or the other states that have prohibitions on same-sex marriage…. And they will ask that those 'marriages' be recognized.”

Smart man that Wicker, this is my plan exactly… Because under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, more commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. It is my intention to go to California after the November Election, get married there and then come back to my home state of North Carolina and sue them for violating my Constitutional Rights under Article IV, Section 1…. Must be why Wicker is a Senator huh?

While the FMA has no more chance of passing in congress then it had in 2006, bearing in mind that even Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain says he does not support it, you can be sure that as November gets closer, instead of putting forth plans solving the economic woes in this country and that get us out of Iraq, you will be seeing more and more Republicans saying “oh look, evil gay people want their full rights guaranteed them under the Constitution. We can’t have that, it would ruin the country.”

"Pro-family groups" said they were upbeat about the bill, while emphasizing its importance in protecting families and children.

Hell why they are at it, maybe Senator Wicker, all long with his Republican friends, should just go ahead and try to repeal the whole constitution like Hitler did in Germany.

A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges,' that include property rights, benefits, and taxation. Additionally same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

I have been living in a committed lesbian relationship for over 10 years, and we have two well-loved and well cared for children. We work, vote and pay our taxes to support this nation. We are Americans and good ones. In addition we are also a family and a good one of those too. My “Gay American Family” is here to stay and we want our full rights under the Constitution.

No, the problems in this country are not caused by us “Gay Others” or my “Gay Family”; they are being caused by 8 years of bad management under a Republican Administration that Sen. Wicker has fully supported all along. It is the incompetent policies of that Republican Administration that caters to the likes of Big Churches, Big Oil and bigots that has lead to run-a-way inflation, unemployment and fuel prices, that my “Gay American Family” as all American families currently are experiencing full force across this nation.

And I am sick and tired of being used as a smoke screen for Republican incompetence.

Read More......

Just in case you have any questions why we as LGBT voters need to support Barack Obama….

With the death toll in the war in Iraq rising every day, the economy heading into the tank and numbers on home foreclosures, joblessness and gas prices heading to the moon, John McCain, has taken some very unpopular George Bush-like stances on lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, expanding Bush's tax cuts, and leaving the troops in Iraq forever, so he will need all the conservative voters he can get.

McCain knows that in 2004 Bush did a pretty good job of using same-sex marriage bans on 11 state ballots to get conservative voter out to the polls, even though McCain refused to support the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which Bush promoted in that election.

But when it’s your name on the ballot, old Republican tricks die hard, so in an effort to woo votes from people he once called "agents of intolerance" he is making a play to conservative evangelicals by last week expressing his support for the ballot measure to end same-sex marriages in California, also known as Proposition 8 and Florida’s Anti Gay Marriage Initiative.



In an E-Mail to the anti-gay protectmarriage.com, McCain said…

I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona,"

On the other hand, recently Barack Obama posted a letter on San Francisco’s Alice B Toklas Democratic Club website expressing his support for secure equal rights LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country that I would like to share with you….

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too, long issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Any more Questions?

Read More......

I have approximately 1,000 lawyers in my family, so lawyers have always been heroes of mine--but never more so than at this given moment in history. I have watched a variety of attempts to impeach the so-called President and his cronies go down in flames, and I've always been struck by the thought, Why bother with impeachment? These guys are criminals who have repeatedly sh*t upon the Constitution! Let's prosecute them! Well, some lawyers have decided to germinate an answer to my civic prayers--as usual!

Outing CIA agents in wartime and overthrowing sovereign leaders while lying to your constituents and the world to do it and then refusing to testify about it? What's up with that? As a blogger on Morning Seditionists once wrote,

"You know, if I could ask these assholes questions, I’d ask how come good, god-fearin’ Christians are terrified of swearing an oath - in public - to their God, that they will tell the truth. I mean, lying is a sin (a big one, too - bearing false witness and all that; I don’t claim to be an expert, but I believe that’s one of those commandment thingies they’re always whining about), and they’re all a bunch of fucking holier-than-thou, party of God types, so you’d think they’d be chompin’ at the bit to get out there and rub their greasy palms all over the good book (among other things)."

So yeah, what's up with that? Well, some lawyers have decided to, um, yeah, like, kind of, maybe talk about how criminal prosecution over the accumulation of messed-up things the Bush administration has done might--just might--wind up in, um, you know, like, a hangin' or two.

The Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is planning a September conference to establish a case for the prosecution of George W. Bush and friends for war crimes. The Dean's name is Lawrence Velvel, and back in the late 1960s, he and several other law professors gained notoriety for trying to declare the Vietnam war unconstitutional, so you have to love the guy. I will let Professor Velvel speak for himself:

"This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred; it is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth. [. . .] We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice, and we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s."

This guy added, "For Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Yoo to spend years in jail or go to the gallows for their crimes would be a powerful lesson to future American leaders."

Reportedly, the conference intends to explore:

* the natures of the crimes committed;

* who (including federal judges and members of Congress) might be involved;

* which foreign or domestic venues could be used to bring about prosecution; and

* the coordination of an umbrella group of partnering legal organizations to make everything possible.

Sooooo . . . yeah! Thank you, Dean Velvel, and thank you participating lawyers--took you all long enough, but thank you. View the original announcement here.

From Dean Velvel's website:

"Both experts and the public are invited to the Conference. It will be held at 500 Federal Street in Andover, Massachusetts, from 10 in the morning until 4:30 in the afternoon on Saturday and Sunday, September 13 and 14. Breakfasts, lunches and dinners will be provided, and will be covered by a conference charge of $125. Hotel rooms will be available a mile away, at the Wyndham Hotel, for 99 dollars per night, with buses available to take attendees to and return them from the conference.

"Anyone who wants to attend the conference should contact my special assistant, Jeff Demers, at demers@mslaw.edu or at (978) 681-0800."

Read More......

I want you to watch this video so bad. I looked all over the internet for a transcript yesterday and couldn't find one, so I lovingly typed up a transcript for y'all [below]. Sheesh!

The next time some conservative tells you that liberals don't have a clue about foreign policy, please, for me, kindly shove this all up in their faces. Say it with me now: "that’s the result of the Bush/McCain approach to the war on terrorism!"

Transcript:
Barack Obama: We had a productive discussion on the challenges facing our nation. I’m grateful to these distinguished men and women who will be advising me in the months to come. As we discussed in the meeting, we face serious challenges to our security. Our nation is fighting two wars. There are terrorists who are determined to kill as many Americans as they can. The world’s most dangerous weapons risk falling into the hands of our enemies. That’s why the single greatest priority of my presidency will be doing anything and everything that is needed to keep the American people safe.

In the face of these real threats we can’t afford another campaign in which national security issues and the truth are distorted and manipulated. So let me take this opportunity to just talk about some of the attacks that the McCain campaign has made in the last few days. For all his talk about civil debate and bipartisanship, Senator McCain has shown that he is going to use predictable, petty, and divisive attacks to try to score a few political points on national security--and if these attacks seem familiar, it’s because they are. They come from the same tired political playbook that George Bush and Karl Rove have used for eight years. It is a political strategy that has been used to prop up policies that have completely failed.

First, let me say a few words about Guantanamo. By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been a failure. Over the course of nearly seven years there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has just been one conviction for material support of terrorism; meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America’s ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism and undermined our most basic values. So make no mistake, we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this issue.

My approach is guided by a simple premise. I have confidence that our system of justice and that our traditions of rule of law are strong enough to deal with terrorists; Senator McCain does not. That is not the same as suggesting that we should give detainees the full privileges that are afforded American citizens. I never said that, the Supreme Court never said that, and I would never do that as President of the United States. So either Senator McCain’s campaign doesn’t understand what the Court decided, or they are distorting my position.

I’ve made the same arguments as Republicans like Arlen Specter, countless generals and national security experts, and the largely Republican-appointed Supreme Court of the United States of America--which is that we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism. We need not choose between our most deeply held values and keeping this nation safe; that is a false choice, and I completely reject it.

In their attempt to distort my position Senator McCain’s campaign has said I want to pursue a “law enforcement approach” when it comes to terrorism. This is demonstrably false since I have laid out a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that includes military force, intelligence operations, financial sanctions, and diplomatic action, but the fact that I want to abide by the United States’ Constitution, they say, shows that I am “trapped in a pre-9/11 mindset.”

Well, I refuse to be lectured on national security by the people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon; let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who are responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice; they are Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and their sponsors, the Taleban. They were in Afghanistan, and yet George Bush, with the support of John McCain, decided in 2002 that they should take their eye off the ball—off Afghanistan—so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush, again with the support of John McCain, had to hype up the threat of Saddam Hussein and make false promises that we would be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people and took us into a misguided war, and here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership--the people who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11--have a safe haven in northwest Pakistan where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world; that’s the result of the Bush/McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

We had Al Qaeda and Taleban on the run back in 2002, but then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that,

“Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.”

I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan.

Our military is badly overstretched as a consequence of Iraq. We have nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq. We may have no more than one or two brigades that can function outside of Iraq as a consequence of our current position. Many of the troops there are on their second, third, or fourth tours of duty; meanwhile, Afghanistan is sliding towards chaos and risks turning into a narcoterrorist state. The Taleban is on the offensive in the South. A recent Taleban prison outbreak in Qandahār freed hundreds of militants and underscored the volatile situation on the ground. The coalition’s casualties in Afghanistan last month were actually higher than they were in Iraq; that’s the result of the Bush/McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

We need to take more resources and put them into Afghanistan. I’ve been arguing for this since 2002 when I said that we should finish the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taleban instead of going into Iraq. I’ve called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. I’ve also called for at least $1b in nonmilitary assistance each year, and I’ve repeatedly challenged George Bush and John McCain’s refusal to hold the Pakistani government accountable for the inability to crack down on Al Qaeda and the Taleban operating within their borders--because we are not going to get Afghanistan right until we get our Pakistan policy right.

So I am happy to talk about 9/11, and I am happy to talk about the choice that we have in this election. We can: listen to the other side and make the same false arguments about why we need to violate our Constitution; not explain to the American people what exactly we’re doing; stay in Iraq indefinitely; build permanent bases in a country that doesn’t want them; not disclose exactly what’s in the negotiations so we end up learning about them from the Iraqi foreign minister because our own President doesn’t explain it to the American people; and keep short-changing our efforts in Afghanistan and our ability to deal with nearly every other national security challenge that we face. That’s one option. We can do that.

Or, we can finally end this disastrous approach to national security because the record shows that George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism. Their approach has failed. Because of their policies we are less safe, less respected, less able to lead the world.

That’s why I believe it’s time to turn the page. It’s time to end the war in Iraq responsibly. It’s time to stop wasting time and start putting away terrorists. It’s time to finally take out Al Qaeda’s top leadership and to finish the fight in Afghanistan. It’s time to restore our standing in the world so we can once again lead.

That’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.

Read More......

A new study says more and more Americans are using the internet for political interaction. View the study here:

Wired: study stats

Here I am, talking at you as I have done about politics, getting myself all riled up.

Here you are, reading my [more-or-less] political meanderings.

I follow the backs-and-forths of my favorite political team, the Dems, with my full nerdy might going time-bankrupt keeping up-to-date with my RSS feeds. You may or may not be so recklessly nerdy as I, but you might have signed an online petition or sent an email to your local representative. You might have discovered places online that told you how to get to politically loaded places in the real world (like assembly meetings or rallies). Maybe you contributed to a campaign online or spoke up in a forum with other aware individuals.


Whether or not you’ve done any of those things (and this polling data suggests there’s a good chance you have), so what?

We are organizing ourselves in traditional methods; information comes from a central source (like Lesbiatopia) perhaps in the form of a bleg, and people comment or respond privately or send up original material or what-have-you. All of this winds up communicating back to the central source, which processes the responses and chugs forward.

Many of the web’s most innovative tools—such as vehicles for networking or user media—connect people in increasingly accessible ways. Suddenly, people can interact with one another directly without relying on an organized hub of command, thus enabling individuals with financial- or cultural-capital-earning ideas to make major changes without operating through a mediating force. The majority of the people using these tools for political interaction (as the data from the above poll suggest) are between the voting ages of 18-29.

This marriage of political thought with equality of access [accented with the tantalizing prospect of engaging hot 18-29-year-old politically savvy females] inspires my newest and most pressing curiosity in the field of populism. By using the word curiosity I mean to suggest that I know nearly nothing about the subject except what I have cursorily heard and read. In an effort to spark your interest about populism as I have had mine sparked, I will cite the following:

“The term [populist] is not simply defined by any given issue position. It is instead a ‘politics that champions issues that have a broad base of popular support but receive short shrift from the political elite,’ as the Atlantic Monthly’s Ross Douthat says. ‘This explains why you can have left-populists and right-populists,’ he adds” (8).

Sirota, David. “A Portrait of the Writer on a Bathroom Floor.” The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. New York: Crown Pub, 2008.

Everyone is talking about David Sirota’s new book, The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. Apparently the guy is a New York Times’ best-selling author, but I’d never heard of him—not until my pretend celebrity girlfriend Rachel Maddow interviewed him on her radio show. All of a sudden I wanted to know a lot more from this guy.

I went to a book-signing (free courtesy of Brave New Films in Culver City) to see what he was all about, and what struck me most was his assertion that the internet has yet to be used to its full capacity as a political tool. I thought to myself, This guy is so old. Hasn't he seen Obama's website? It's an ingenious mixture of networking and activism! Before I had time to ask a self-righteous question about his claim, he cut my thoughts off by pointing out that the position of President is, Constitutionally, the most resistant office to change; the fact that Obama has been able to pick up on popular social networking website constructs from MySpace and Facebook shows not the ingenuity of his staffpeople but rather the magnitude of benefits that already established methods of social networking lend to political discourse. The mere fact that Obama uses them shows how culturally pervasive (and thus politically safe) they must be in that a Presidential candidate would spend resources endeavoring to learn, promote, and wield them. To put it simply, Obama wouldn't bother making my.barackobama.com work like LinkedIn.com if he didn't think it would win him votes.

One might wonder if Obama is a populist force, but the Senator proves not to be; he releases communications, his base responds to them, and he acknowledges the desires of his base to often unequal degrees. This is all standard organizing as mentioned above. The contrast appears when populist members of Obama's base act independently of the campaign, perhaps by organizing smaller groups amongst themselves (e.g. LGBTQ folks for Obama) that operate outside of the central campaign.

I absorbed all this and much more at Mr. Sirota's book-signing but was left with one pressing question. Dutifully, I bought a copy of the book (AND I WAS SHORT $2 SO A MAN KINDLY GAVE ME $2 TO PURCHASE MY COPY. SIR, WHEREVER YOU ARE, THANK YOU AND THE BLESSINGS OF MANY LESBIANS UPON YOU!) and got in line to ask Mr. Sirota my question.

When I got to the front of the line I said, "I'm 24 years old, and this social networking stuff is, like, 1,000 years old to me and my friends. They're self-organizing all the time, but very few of them have any experience or interest in social activism. My parents (who instilled in me a love of justice and the Constitution) grew up in the most politically volatile period in decades and continue to be deeply involved in local to national legislature; however, their generation is slow to embrace all the technology that promises the most. So how do I bring together the experience of our elders with the innovations of our youth to inspire action?"

He didn't really have an answer, but he was upfront about it. He said something like, "Like I said, these tools have yet to be utilized to their full extent. Someone's going to have to figure out how to do it."

I lamely replied, "I'll figure out something!"

He signed, "To Julia-- Join the uprising! David Sirota".

Now I can't stop thinking about it, although I have yet to read Mr. Sirota's book. (I'm still relishing Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present by Michael Oren, which is awesome, by the way.) I keep asking myself, how do we self-organize to inspire change without an umbrella organization? How do we unite bloggers with our aged cultural warriors to kick ass? I'm seeing the buds of inspiration in places like OpenLeft where the "American Blogger" contest is producing fresh ideas every week from bloggers to affect change using normal people in their everyday communities.

But I look longingly at Lesbiatopia and experience an almost metaphysical sensation of the opportunities to incite lesbian revolution that must lie so narrowly past our capacity to perceive them. I feel that the machine to get lesbians in motion for their best interests must intrinsically reside in the html code here, but how do we activate it?

I suppose that an idea of "pure populism" works about as well in practice as "pure loving sharing equality hearts and flowers" does, which is not at all; naturally, a theory of self-organization that pits any sort of us versus them--no matter how noble the intentions--will eventually crumble to in-fighting or change under pressure over who is on the side of whom (much like an idea of total equality will be belied by invariably unequal assets within and among a populace). What I mean to say is, any movement that attempts to rid itself of a central hub will produce, ironically, a leader around which such a movement will coalesce, right?

--but then again, look at sites like youtube or Wikileaks. Even with the increasingly important roles they play in shaming the powers that be and providing laypeople with ways to educate themselves, we cannot point to leaders steering these egalitarian utilities; the popularity of the media within these sites reflects the necessity of useful user-driven content to succeed in a [quite metaphorical] "death-of-the-author"-type way. While the content-producers or "authors" may remain anonymous, we can easily identify the censors who pull the videos and articles from view and the lawyers who make the persuasive demands to pull them.

So we can point to populism, and we can point to its enemies. How do we go from pointing to interacting? How do we, for instance, take a site that points at lesbian interest and transform it into a weapon of lesbian evolution that takes its cues not from your fabulous blogging team but from you, the readers?

Check out David Sirota's blog here, and join the uprising with me. I wish I had some answers formulated for my questions, but like I said, this is brand-spanking-new to me, and quite frankly, to dictate my thoughts to you would be anathema to the spirit of the movement I'm seeking.

My only clue for my questions is anonymity--the one running current I can identify in the "populist" versus conservative hot-topic areas of social interactions as I perceive them . . . .

. . . including the faceless mass of people who hate the occupation in Iraq versus individuals running our government.

. . . including the prescriptively anonymous LGBTQ military members versus the senators, generals, and colleagues who oppose them while all receive salaries paid by public taxes.

. . . including the concealed couples who enjoy the intimate but not civil privileges of marriage versus the registered voters, petitioners, and rallying disorganized religions.

. . . including the anonymous closeted lesbians toiling away under an ENDA that protects no one versus the pointed homophobia of the identifiably ignorant in the workforce.

So maybe that's not populism at all really; I admittedly have a lot of research ahead. Perhaps radical change requires the full force of a nameless majority to impel momentum, and LGBTQ issues would not be considered large enough for the populist stage (although, e.g., 73% of servicemembers polled said they were alright with openly gay servicemembers in the military). Maybe populism doesn't have anything to do with any of this, and I'm completely making all of this up and/or missing the point entirely; it's interesting to ponder whatever it's called, though, right? And you know I'll come clean whenever I finish the book!

Regardless, if any of this stuff at all interests you, please kindly help me along; I told David Sirota I'd figure something out, and right now I got nothin'.

Read More......

Here is a blast for all of our Republican Lesbiatopia readers out there. (That would be all two of you, if you don’t count my dad.)

It is estimated that approximately 51,320 of California's same-sex couples are planning to marry now that the California state Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to civil marriage in that state. Another 68,000 out-of-state couples are likely to travel to California to tie the knot.

In an analysis done by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law it was found that same-sex marriage could potentially boost California's faltering economy by anywhere between $437.5 million and $683.6 million over the next three years and that direct spending by the newlyweds would create and sustain more than 2,178 jobs in California, particularly in the travel-related business.

The Institute based these predictions largely on the experiences of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004.

This same study also determined that same-sex marriage spending would generate more than $64 million in revenue for the state and local governments over the next three years, with $55 million generated in sales and occupancy tax revenues and $8.8 million in marriage license fees going to California's counties.

One of the studies co-authors, Economist Brad Sears has said,

The fiscal effects of same-sex marriage will reverberate well beyond City Hall, helping to balance the state budget."

And his partner in the study, M.V. Lee Badgett, noted

In a tough economic climate, California businesses are in a unique position to reap the wedding windfall, bringing millions of additional dollars in revenue to state businesses."

Last week even talk show host Jay Leno commented on the economic benefits for California saying,

What's so funny to me is how people miss out on the economic benefits just in terms of catering and flowers and planning… The businesses that cater to [the gay community] will do very well. So it just seems like common sense."

But common sense is not what some are showing when it come to same sex marriage.

Yesterday, Lesbiatopia’s Publisher, Renee, ran a funny little piece here about some anonymous homophobic photographers on craigslist who said they were refusing to do business with same sex couples.

After reading Lesberita’s article and laughing till I almost pee’d, I came to finally surmise the reason these photogs stayed anonymous was they were worried that in expressing their homophobia as themselves, they feared their businesses would suffer a backlash from the many good people out there who would not want to do business with such irrational haters.

But this desire protect revenue it seems is not shared by officials in three predominately Republican California counties who are letting their irrational hatred of gay people get in the way of good business.

Butte, Calaveras and Kerns Counties announced last week that their county clerk offices would stop performing wedding ceremonies altogether, for both gay and heterosexual couples alike, thus losing revenue for those counties.

The County Board of Supervisors in the very Republican Kerns County, the county seat for the City of Bakersfield, have even gone further and are also looking into an ordinance that would ban the clerk in that county from even issuing marriage licenses in total.

Ken Mettler of the Bakersfield Republican Assembly was quoted as saying in support of this measure,

The California Family code still says that marriage is between a man and a woman. They’ve created legal confusion.”

I am a business woman, I own a vacation home rental business in North Carolina and you may have noticed from reading some of my past articles I am not overly fond of Christian Rightist who piss all over the First Amendment to the Constitution by demanding that their views of what they say the Bible says about gays, be public law, and try to push their view of religion down everyones throat.

For sure, I don’t like them much.

But while you can rest assured that I would be calling these people assholes the way to the bank, it would not stop me from doing business with them and cashing their checks.

I may be gay but I am not stupid, rightist asshole money spends just as well as anyones money.

This is America after all and everyone has the right on his opinions, as I have the right to disagree with them. But I also have a responsibility to my children, just as the Kern County Officials have a responsibility to the taxpayers of that county.

County officials are supposed to be good stewards for the people and $8.8 million is a lot of money, but unlike the photographers who chose to keep their anonymity these county official are being out and proud homophobes.

So how much of that $8.8 million in expected revenue to the counties do you think they can expect from the gay community?

Same sex marriages are still going to happen in California; gays and lesbians are going to be spending their hard earned bucks on long awaited nuptials, but they are just not going to spend ithem in countries that make them feel unwelcome.

If my county officials here were letting their personal bigotry get the better of them by letting $8.8 million in revenues go someplace else, then coming back to my pocket for more taxes in these hard economic times, I’d vote their bigoted asses right out of office for being the fiscally irresponsible boobs they are.

Or is it just me who thinks like this?

Read More......

Yesterday evening, my partner Debbie and I took part in a LGBT issues conference call sponsored the Barack Obama for President of the United States campaign.

This call included about 1200 participants across the country and was by invitation only.

Steve Hildebrand, the deputy national campaign director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign began the 30-minute conference call at 6pm Eastern Standard Tine on a very conciliatory tone that was aimed at Hillary Clinton supporters and gave Ms Clinton credit for being a fighter and a worthy opponent.

He also made clear that Obama has from the beginning of his campaign addressed the issues that face those of us in the LGBT community and made sure that everyone knew that this would be a 50 State campaign, not just one that focused on Battle Ground States



Former HRC executive director Elizabeth Birch, a Clinton supporter, said during the call that it was time for peace between the two camps, and that while she had supported Mrs. Clinton for her experience, strength and her genuine concern for the nation's well-being, she also respects and admires Barack Obama.

Ms. Birch said that she was disappointed that Ms, Clinton will not be the Democratic Nominee for President, in part because wanted her daughter, Anna, to see a woman become President, but distinguished that Senator Obama grew during the primaries, to be important a force in her household, because her twins are biracial, and quite frankly look like Barak Obama.

During this conference call, the participants noted that Obama has come out in opposition to both the Florida and California anti-gay referendums that will be on this November’s ballot, highlighted the depth that Obama that has supported gay and lesbian rights during his career and that is extremely important for LGBT voters to get to the polls in the fall general elections.

Other call participants pointed out Obama’s strong support in the world wide fight against AIDS, his support of gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure, where he sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, his co-sponsoring legislation in the US Senate to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity, the need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, his support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and his belief it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

All of the speakers made it clear that John McCain record on LGBT issues can only be called dismal.

As many readers know I have long been on board with Barack, and have for some time thought he brings a new hope for the cause of LGBT rights. I think he represents the face of change, a face that I have never seen on a Presidential Candidate before.

Had Barack Obama not run, I am pretty sure that I would have supported Mrs. Clinton, because I have have to echo Elizabeth Birch in her desire to see a woman as president in this country. I think its high time for that to happen.

Some of you may know I am deaf. In my world I did not hear the sound and fury of the candidates. I could only read their lips, their words and their body language. I tend to find that I connect with people on a different level then others might. I go a lot on the vibes I get. I have a little inner voice that says to me, “yep this is the one”.

Last year Barack Obama said …

While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

And Barack had my little voice and me from hello.

I believed this man when he said he wants to help us in the LGBT community to achieve our full rights as tax paying citizens and you can trust that my little inner voice is no easy sell.

My Father is as hard core Republican as they come; he is a military man who holds a position with the current Administration in Washington, he is a friend and supporter of John McCain, but the other night dad said something very interesting to me about Barack Obama.

He said he has not seen anyone like this in a national election since Bobby Kennedy ran in 1968.

I was not born in 1968, but from what I’ve heard about RFK, but I think my very Republican dad paid Barack Obama a very big compliment.

I also think dads little inner voice is telling him that it might be time to update his resume`.

Read More......

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Yesterday in Atlanta Former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, who helped push through the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that established the terms under which gays and lesbians could serve in the U.S. military, said that it’s time to review the policy.

“I think 15 years go by on any personnel policy, it’s appropriate to take another look at it see how it’s working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military. Start with a Pentagon study,” Nunn said.

I wonder if this would qualify as a legitimate study?



For quite some time, U.S. troops have supported repealing the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.

A December 2006 poll of service members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan found 73 percent of those polled were "comfortable with lesbians and gays." And in a 2004 a University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey poll found that a majority of junior enlisted servicemembers believed gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 16 percent in 1992.

According to the Annenberg Survey, those who support allowing gays to serve openly do so because they believe sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance. Twenty-nine percent also believe allowing gays to serve is an issue of equal rights.

Even among those who oppose allowing gays to serve openly, however, the rationales often used for excluding gays were rejected.

Only 16 percent of those opposed believed lesbian and gay service members were “bad for morale,” while just 12 percent thought allowing gays to serve openly would be “bad for teamwork.”

These are two justifications frequently used by military leaders who have rejected the idea of allowing gays to serve openly.

So it seems the old rationales used to justify the military gay ban aren’t even effective among those who support the Pentagon’s overall position anymore.

At the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, himself a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., told graduating cadets that if Congress were to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, the military would enforce the change.

I know my father who I will only say is currently well placed in the Pentagon hierarchy, shares the same view.

So I have to ask…. Why if everyone agrees it is time for a change, why is DADT still in place?

Nearly 60 years ago on July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981. That order brought an end to racial segregation within the ranks of the United States military forces. The written document contained six paragraphs with less than 250 words.

Then Chief of Staff, Army General Omar Bradley, warned, that it was not the business of the armed services to conduct "social experiments." and that the Military would never accept black and white solders and sailors serving together.

President Truman called General Bradley the next day to ask him how much he liked his job.

By the end of the Korean War in 1953, the U.S. military was almost completely desegregated.

My dad will happily tell you it was this event that opened all later doors to blacks in this country and that it has always been the military, however stodgily it does it, that has lead the way for social change in this country on everything from civil right to womens equality and it has done it not out of any sense of social responsibility, but its own pragmatic needs.

The Military needed soldiers, sailors and airman, saw that the arguments presented against black and woman serving in its ranks were all just so much emotional nonsense based solely in personal prejudices that had no real basis in military fact. It saw that blacks and women could drive tanks and fly planes just as well as whites and men could, that the needs of the military were well served by inclusion of these groups. So it reeducated its majority to accept these groups into it ranks.

Dad will tell you there are still people serving that because of some personal prejudice, still don