Catholic Bishops have become political operation fighting social justice

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Who knew one of the most aggressive political operations in the U.S. in the year 2009 would be the Catholic Bishops?

Last week, Maine's Bishop, Richard Malone, gloated after his campaign to repeal Maine's marriage equality took away the rights of same-sex couples in that state. In Maine, the Bishop turned his church into a political operation.

This weekend, the Catholic Bishops are getting credit for undermining women's rights in the new health care bill through the Stupak amendment:

Both sides credited a forceful lobbying effort by Roman Catholic bishops with the success of the provision, inserted in the bill under pressure from conservative Democrats.

The Bishops also led a sustained campaign on this issue. And, Obama and Hill leaders acquiesced:

Beginning in late July, the bishops began issuing a series of increasingly stern letters to lawmakers making clear that they saw the abortion-financing issue as pre-eminent, a deal-breaker.

At the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in August, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, stole a private moment with Mr. Obama to deliver the same warning: The bishops very much wanted to support his health care overhaul but not if it provided for abortions. The president “listened intently,” the cardinal reported on his blog.

Bishops implored their priests and parishioners to call lawmakers. Conservative Democrats negotiating over the issue with party leaders often expressed their desire to meet the bishops’ criteria, according to many people involved in the talks. On Oct. 8 three members of the bishops conference wrote on its behalf to lawmakers, “If the final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill.”

The Bishops have made themselves into a political operation. That means they warrant the same kind of scrutiny every other political operation receives. No hiding behind the collars.

The Bishops want to take away people's rights. Members of Congress and the Obama administration have to decide just how closely they want to align with the protectors of pedophiles.

Don't Ask, Don't Give

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: 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.

So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.

You can find our Frequently Asked Questions, below, that explain the entire campaign. You can use our "Tell a Friend" page to tell all of your friends, family members, and coworkers about this effort (and we won't keep any of the email addresses you enter, they'll all be deleted after the emails are sent).

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is this?
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.

Why are you asking people to take this pledge?
Candidate Obama promised during the campaign to be the gay community’s “fierce advocate.” He and the Democratic party have not kept their promise.

Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?

• Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
• Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
• Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
• Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
• Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
• Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
• Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
• Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
• Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
• Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.
• Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.
• Changing his commitment to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to “changing DADT it in a sensible manner.”
• Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn’t have to.
• Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.
• Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.
• Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.
• Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.
• Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.
• Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie.
• Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.
• Suggesting he won’t get to DADT, DOMA or ENDA until his second term, if ever.
• Refusing to suspend implementation of anti-gay laws, like DADT and DOMA, while suspending laws that hurt others.
• White House staffers worked against amendment proposed by Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell investigations
• Saying won’t repeal DADT until wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finished.
• Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to beg President Obama to help on DADT repeal.
• A White House official referring to gay civil rights advocates, marching on Washington, as part of “the Internet left fringe” whose opinions don’t matter.
• Saying he won’t touch DOMA in his first term.
• Refusing to release list of gay attendees at hate crimes reception.
• Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
• Saying gays are “naïve” for wanting the president to keep his promise.
• Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.
• Attorney General Eric Holders flubs question on Maine, twice -- once while in Maine.
• DNC/OFA emailed supporters in Maine and Washington state, but didn't ask them to vote against anti-gay ballot measures, then lied about it.
• Senator Durbin (D-IL), a very close ally of Obama, says Senate probably won’t repeal DADT in 2010, as promised.
• Senior DNC official accuses gays and lesbians of “helping Republicans” by simply asking Democrats to keep their gay civil rights promise.
• Refusing to publicly endorse marriage equality for gays.
• Continuing to dawdle over DADT.
• Refusing to this day to interview with the gay press.
• Refusing to apologize for any of these slights.

But won’t your pledge hurt Democrats?
It never hurts Democrats to keep their promises to the voters. The American people respect strong leaders who have the courage to stick to their beliefs. And it will only help Democrats in the next election to stand by their commitments to a core constituency. If Democratic voters aren't motivated, they won't vote. We are concerned that the President's failure to fulfill his promises may suppress voter participation not only from gay Democrats, but from our families, friends and allies. In a very real way, this is an effort to ensure that we get-out-the-vote in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

But if you don’t give money to the DNC, won’t that help elect Republicans who are even worse on gay issues, and other issues Democrats care about?
We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.

You have to admit, gay rights is controversial – wouldn’t it be political suicide for Democrats to push gay rights?
Democrats should not have promised to support gay civil rights rights in exchange for our votes if they never intended to keep the promise. If we're not controversial during the campaign, when politicians are happy to accept our votes and our money, we cannot accept being labeled controversial after our candidates win. We kept our part of the bargain, we voted for Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress. It’s entirely reasonable for us to ask our elected officials to keep their part of the bargain too.

What's more, gay rights are not controversial. Americans favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military by a margin of 69% - 26%. By a margin of 57% - 37%, "A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples." That can't happen if DOMA is the law. And in fact, if these civil rights promises were controversial, they would have hurt candidate Obama at the polls. But, he proudly and loudly proclaimed his support for LGBT equality, and he won.

No matter how disappointed you are, aren’t Democrats still better than Republicans?
The Republican party is terrible on gay issues. That doesn’t excuse the Democratic party breaking specific promises to the gay community made in exchange for our votes. We didn’t break our promise at the ballot box, the Democrats shouldn’t break theirs after we helped put them into office.

President Obama has only been in office less than a year, why the rush?
In less than a year, serious damage has already been done to the President’s commitments to the gay community. The problem isn’t only that he hasn’t been quick enough to fulfill his promises, it’s that he has actually backtracked on his promises and hurt the cause of civil rights and our community, as detailed above.

But aren’t there bigger priorities than gay rights for the Democrats to deal with, like health care and the economy?
Would President Obama, the DNC and the Congress tell other minorities that their civil rights aren't important? The suggestion is that Democrats have more important things on the table. When won't Democrats have more important priorities than the civil rights of gays and lesbians? Will there ever be a day, a year, an administration, when the President and the Congress won't have serious crises to deal with? Suggesting that gay Americans and their friends and families wait until the President and Congress have nothing else to do is not only insulting, it's a recipe for never. And regardless, we trust that this President, unlike the previous, can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Who is behind this effort?
John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, two longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, and the editors of AMERICAblog.com. AMERICAblog has raised over $300,000 for Democratic candidates and progressive causes, including nearly $50,000 for then-candidate Barack Obama, supported by AMERICAblog early in the primaries. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others.

You can contact us at: dncboycott@gmail.com

How can I help?
Sign the pledge, tell your friends about this campaign, read the blog, and stay tuned for updates and action alerts on how you help make sure that the President, the Congress and the Democratic party keep their promises to the LGBT community, our families, our friends and our allies.

Close it Right: Guantánamo Must Be Shut Down Quickly And Properly

Anthony D. Romero, HuffingtonPost.com: On January 22, 2009, his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order mandating that the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year. Well, the clock’s ticking and it’s not looking good. As January 22, 2010 fast approaches, the administration is signaling that it's unlikely to meet its own deadline.

Guantánamo has become a symbol of American lawlessness and human rights violations, and it is highly disturbing that it is taking so long to shutter it. The prison should be closed now.

While the administration has encountered diplomatic problems regarding the transfer of detainees to other countries, the potential delay has also been due to business as usual in the nation’s capital. Even with Democrats in power, we’ve once again seen the tail wagging the dog, with a slow and weak response to fear-mongering about the unfounded dangers of transferring detainees to maximum security prisons in the U.S. — the “Not In My Backyard” cry from obstructionist cynics. In fact, a Democratic-led Congress has voted four times to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. except for prosecution, making diplomatic efforts to convince other countries to accept detainees that much more difficult. Our very own elected officials who should be advocating for justice have essentially and shamelessly been obstructing it.

Unfortunately, instead of continuing to passionately pursue the quick closure of Guantánamo, some members of the administration have played right into the obstructionism, sacrificing principle on the altar of political expediency. In fact, there are reports that White House counsel Greg Craig, who courageously led the charge for setting a closure deadline, has been criticized rather than supported for advancing the cause of American values. It is hard to know who started all this cynical maneuvering and who caved into it, but it’s time for the administration to regain its moral footing. That means reigniting its passion for ridding the world of Guantánamo as soon as humanly possible.

But whether or not the administration breaks its deadline for closure, it must not break its commitment to American values. As important as closing Guantánamo soon is closing it right. That means putting an end not only to the prison itself, but also to the unconstitutional and inhumane policies that have come to define it.

Approximately 775 individuals have been held at Guantánamo since it opened in 2002, only five percent of whom were captured by U.S. forces, according to a study by Seton Hall University School of Law. The great majority were captured by Pakistani or Northern Alliance forces, or turned in by bounty hunters for well-publicized rewards.

At least one detainee was as old as 98 when he was brought to Guantánamo; several were teenagers. ACLU client Mohammed Jawad was only 14 or 15 when he was brought to the prison, where he spent the next seven years of his life — essentially growing up there — before a judge ordered his release when the U.S. government was unable could produce any legitimate evidence to continue holding him. It has become clear over time that, contrary to the Bush administration's assertions, not all Guantánamo detainees were the "worst of the worst." The ACLU has just released a video featuring interviews with five men who lost years of their lives at Guantánamo without any meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention, only to be released without ever having been charged with a crime.

About 220 men remain at Guantánamo today, including 75 who have been approved for release by a presidential task force but remain in custody while the administration figures out what to do with them. The administration says it will announce the fate of at least some Guantánamo detainees by November 16. ...

President Obama's promise to close Guantánamo was an important commitment that must be honored, and quickly. But it will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its shameful policies elsewhere. We can't go back in time and stop the tragedy of Guantánamo from happening. We can, however, stop it from happening again.

Anthony D. Romero is Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

LSB: When is this administration going to live up to the promises it made in order to be put in office? The war isn't winding down, Guantanamo is still open, and DADT still has a strong hold on the nuts of our military. Sorry, but "a lot on his plate" is beginning to sound an awful like "it's hard work." Nothing but an excuse. Well, I'll find an excuse the next time the DNC needs money, volunteer time or my vote if the Congressional majority and the administration can't follow through with its promises. Where is the change we need?

SNL Parady of FOX "News"

Domestic Partner Benefits No Longer Treated as Income in Healthcare Bill

From the Left: If you’re gay or lesbian, one of the significant aspects of the sweeping healthcare reform bill passed last night by the Democratic Congress is the change to the way domestic partner benefits are treated by the IRS.

Under current law, domestic partner benefits are treated as taxable income — a blatantly homophobic and discriminatory practice that exposes employees and the employer to higher tax liability.

Gay or lesbian employees with domestic partner benefits, on average paid $1,100 more in taxes than their straight coworker. Under the healthcare reform bill, such benefits are tax-free.

From personal experience regarding domestic partner benefits, I can report that adding Jim to my health plan, or Jim adding me to his health plan, exposes the other to roughly $5,000 a year in additional taxable income. Because of this, neither of us have added the other to our employer sponsored health plan. Over the years, I have written more than a dozen complaint letters to my Congressional representatives regarding this discriminatory practice.

In the words of Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA):

“[The change] would correct a longstanding injustice, end a blatant inequity in the tax code and help make healthcare covergae more affordable for more Americans.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck: Touts Conspiracy Theories, Cries (VIDEO)

Alex Leo, HuffingtonPost.com: We knew Jon Stewart was a talented comedian, but until last night we didn't know he had missed his true calling: Being Glenn Beck. Yes, the "Daily Show" host spent an entire segment acting like, talking like, crying like, dancing like, and gesticulating like Glenn Beck. He was inspired by the fact that Beck recently had his appendix removed to create the 11/3 project--taking America back to a time before Beck lost his vestigial organ.

"Apparently the medicine that was good enough for our founding fathers is now considered politically or medically incorrect," Stewart said employing both air quotes and crazy voice registers that left the viewer wondering who and what he was quoting. "I'm not saying this is a plot by Hitler to steal Glenn Beck from all of us internal organ by internal organ by internal organ and then reprogram him to use as a weapon. But isn't it fascinating that I'm the only one with the courage to ask these questions?" He proceeded to jump up from his seat and run over to a chalk board that had the human anatomy scrawled on it alongside Che, acorns and the Russian flag. It only got better from there.

The 11/3 Project

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Obama Administration Helps House Democrat Gut Post-Enron Reforms

Shahien Nasiripour, HuffingtonPost.com: With the White House's blessing, a House panel voted Tuesday to water down a key post-Enron measure designed to protect investors.

In a voice vote, members of the House Financial Services Committee agreed to permanently exempt from a provision of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act all publicly traded companies with market values less than $75 million -- which amounts to more than half of all public companies. (more)

LSB: This isn't change we can believe in!

Obama One Year Later: The Audacity of Winning vs. The Timidity of Governing

Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com: ... I often found myself wondering what Candidate Obama would think of President Obama. Would he look at what the White House is doing and say, "that's what I and my supporters worked so hard for?"

How did the candidate who got into the race because he'd decided that "the core leadership had turned rotten" and that "the people were getting hosed" become the president who has decided that the American people can only have as much change as Olympia Snowe will allow?

How did the candidate who told a stadium of supporters in Denver that "the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result" become the president who has surrounded himself with the same old players trying the same old politics, expecting a different result?

How could a president whose North Star as a candidate was that he "would not forget the middle class" choose as his chief economic advisor a man who recently argued against extending unemployment benefits in the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression?

...if the president wants to make sure he doesn't let down the millions who believed he really would change the rotten system, he should read the The Audacity to Win from beginning to end -- and rediscover a whole host of things he knows, but seems to have forgotten.

Then he can complete the journey from The Audacity of Hope and The Audacity To Win to The Audacity to Govern.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-one-year-later-the_b_343209.html

SkyWest and Delta Accused of Anti-Gay Discrimination, May be Sued

TowleRoad.com: Gilbert Caldwell, a SkyWest baggage agent who married his partner last year in California in the window following the Supreme Court's decision when it was legal, says SkyWest refuses to offer his husband the same free fares it offers heterosexual spouses, the Desert Sun reports:

"In a six-page letter to the airlines, attorney Tara L. Borelli, with Lambda Legal, contends her client, Gilbert Caldwell, and his spouse, the Rev. David Farrell, are enduring employment discrimination due to a SkyWest travel policy that refuses to extend its benefits to same-sex spouses 'while heterosexual employees' spouses are fully respected automatically.' The Oct. 29 letter is the first step before formally suing SkyWest and Delta, Borelli said Friday.' In this incident, they are refusing to treat Gilbert in the same way as they do married, heterosexual couples,' added Borelli, a Lambda Legal staff attorney in Los Angeles. 'They should be providing travel benefits on equal terms.' ... Officials with SkyWest and Delta Airlines did not return multiple phone messages on Thursday and Friday seeking comment. .This surprising and discriminatory policy not only sends a powerful message of stigma and devaluation to SkyWest's gay and lesbian employees, but contravenes clear California legal mandates to treat same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners on equal terms with heterosexual spouses, the letter states."

The SF Chronicle reports: "The case is one of the first discrimination complaints to surface by any of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California before the November 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

SkyWest has not released a statement about the case. Lambda Legal says the letter to SkyWest is the final step before a lawsuit is filed.

State Be Ill-in'

Kenneth in the 212: Hundreds of students have rallied in support of Dan DeLong, a teacher in Illinois who was suspending for "letting" his 10th-grade students read a report on homosexuality among animals. Apparently this is far more objectionable than the case of another Illinois teacher who warned his students that they wouldn't want "your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags" and was merely given a warning, when he clearly should have been fired.

Predictable

I can't believe it's not a democracy!: Alan Grayson calls a whore a whore -- Beltway whores freak out & defend Enron lobbyist working at the Fed. Naturally, democrats are piling on and trying to distance themselves from one of the truly progressive, strong true democratic voices in DC. I hope that Grayson gets soundly reelected and the sheep who are trying to paint him as a crazy man find themselves out of a job. Long and short, Grayson was right when he pointed out that Linda Robertson, a former Enron lobbyist and current Fed lobbyist, had "a long and well-known career as a "K Street whore." Sadly, Grayson felt compelled to apologize for using a term "seen as disrespectful of women."

I'm a woman and I don't see "whore" as disrespectful to women. Case in point: Jeff Gannon. I rest my case.

Halloween Humor

From Gary McCoy