I am married to Lieutenant Gary Ross. He graduated from high school a year early and he enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1995 at the age of 17. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) was already in effect and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) went into effect the following year. After a few years, Gary decided to become an officer and he received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. He began school in 1998 and I met him on a dating website in 2000. We have been in a committed relationship for over 13 years. Gary graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2002 and his class was the first class to graduate into war after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He has been assigned to several ships and he is currently the Combat Systems Officer on U.S.S. ANCHORAGE (LPD 23) in San Diego.

Dan and Lt. Gary Ross

DADT forced us to hide our relationship from everyone except for a handful of trusted friends and family members. The law required Gary to keep me a secret and it forced him to lie to his shipmates on a daily basis. DADT was repealed in 2011 and we were finally able to be open and honest about our relationship for the first time. We waited more than 11 years for that moment and we were legally married in Vermont at the exact moment the repeal went into effect. DADT was a tremendous burden and it was exhilarating to finally be able to express our love openly. However, DOMA continues to cast a dark shadow on our marriage and it prevents us from receiving equal recognition, benefits, and family support for equal sacrifice and service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Gary does the same job as service members who are married to someone of the opposite sex, but he does not receive up to $6,000 per year in compensation because we are the same sex. Gary does not receive the “with dependents” Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rate as a married service member. Instead, he receives the “without dependents” BAH rate which is $246 less per month in San Diego. When Gary’s ship is away from port for more than 30 days, he does not receive Family Separation Allowance (FSA) as a married service member. Instead, he receives nothing which is $250 less per month. Gary does not receive the “with dependents” Permanent Change of Station (PCS) weight allowance as a married service member. Instead, he receives the “without dependents” PCS weight allowance which is 1,500 pounds less.

Gary does the same job as service members who are married to someone of the opposite sex, but I do not receive receive vital benefits because we are the same sex. I have traveled to Mexico on numerous occasions for affordable healthcare because the cost of private insurance is prohibitive. Two days after our wedding, I was returning from the doctor in Mexico when gunfire broke out at the San Ysidro border crossing. A customs agent and several civilians were hurt. Gary and I feared for my life that day. A few years earlier, I went to the emergency room after cutting my left index finger on a table saw and the medical bills totaled about $2,000. On another occasion, I went to the dentist because I was experiencing severe tooth pain and it required a costly root canal and medication. Unfortunately, the tooth had to be extracted six months later and it took several years before Gary and I could save enough money to have my tooth replaced.

Last year, I received medical, dental, and vision insurance benefits through my employer, but I still paid about $4,500 on out-of-pocket healthcare expenses including premiums and deductibles. This year, my insurance benefits were converted to COBRA after a reduction in hours. As a result, I may return to Mexico for affordable healthcare because COBRA premiums are $548 per month.

My husband, Lieutenant Gary Ross, has served in the military for his entire adult life and he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Ironically, DOMA denies us hundreds of federal benefits and many of the same rights he supports and defends for others. DOMA makes second-class citizens out of first-class service members. DOMA is a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States. Gary and I are #DONEwithDOMA and we are fighting for equality.

****

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dan Ross is the husband of Navy Lieutenant Gary Ross. The two were married at the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2011, the day of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. They are plaintiffs in OutServe-SLDN’s federal court challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), McLaughlin v. Panetta. They live in San Diego, CA.

By Neal Simpson

I met former Congressman Patrick Murphy on the campus of Stanford University in October when both of us were invited by the Stanford Law Veterans Organization to speak on a panel discussing the real impacts of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). I was nervous, having never spoken about my experiences as a gay Marine officer to a large group of people. This was compounded by the honor of speaking alongside the man who made my open service possible.

I was a bit of a wreck. Introductions and small talk were made, mineral water was dispensed, and Murphy and I began the typical military tail-sniffing exercise: “Where did you serve? Who did you serve with? When were you there? Oh, do you know so and so?” Surprising to both of us was a mutual friend who, like me, was a Marine who graduated from Texas A&M and whom Murphy served with while in Iraq.

My nervousness faded quickly, thanks to Murphy’s normalcy. He looks and acts like many former service members I know. He’s tall, fit, with excellent posture and a witty, somewhat-in-your-face sense of humor, all of which undoubtedly contributed to the Democrat’s election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006. He’s a guy’s guy, comfortable talking about football and beer and sharing candid stories of his time in the Army. His calm and disarmingly positive demeanor makes it hard not to instantly trust him. It’s immediately obvious why he succeeded in politics.

The panel discussion went well. Each of us presenters (including Zoe Dunning, the only openly gay Naval officer allowed to serve under DADT) had the opportunity to tell our story and answer questions from an audience of about 80 students. There were tender moments, funny stories and a general tone that exemplified exactly why the repeal of DADT was successful. American society has finally embraced openly gay military members; this discussion demonstrated that clearly. Following the panel, we congregated outside over a pony keg and told more stories with other veterans from the audience. The entire event lasted only a few hours, but everyone in attendance walked away with an appreciation for how smoothly the repeal had gone.

Equally obvious were the sacrifices that it took to get to that point, and I knew then that I needed a better understanding of just how hard it had been to finally get the law repealed. Murphy graciously accepted my invitation for an interview, and we spoke several times over the next few weeks, during which time he addressed the OutServe-SLDN audience at its conference in Orlando as well.

To a casual observer, the repeal of DADT seemed to go rather smoothly. President Barack Obama vowed during his campaign to end the policy, and nearly two years after his election he signed the new law. However, the fight over gays in the military is an old one, with DADT implemented under President Bill Clinton in 1993 as a compromise over his initial attempts to end the ban on LGBT service outright. To those who worked since that day to end this policy, the process was anything but smooth, and the end result nowhere near guaranteed. In the House of Representatives, in fact, several other legislators had tried on several occasions to get the policy repealed.

I asked Murphy why he succeeded where others hadn’t. I wanted to know how a straight, Irish-Catholic freshman congressman from a tough district in Pennsylvania was able to place the U.S. House of Representatives firmly on the right side of history’s ledger on such an important issue. His first answer was simple and humble: “You either believe in equality or you don’t. You’re either willing to fight for it or not.”

Not completely satisfied, I pressed: “How did Patrick Murphy become the LGBT military’s Lady Gaga?”

His tone changed and his response was quick: “I joined Congress to kick ass. I didn’t come for a pension. I didn’t come to Congress to f–k around.” Now we were getting somewhere.

From late 2009 when he assumed sponsorship of House Resolution 6520, the stand-alone bill that would eventually pass in March 2010, Murphy met with every single member of Congress, many of them several times. He became a distinctive face for the equality movement, and as an Army veteran, his advocacy was more memorable than that of his predecessors. He would sit with a fellow representative and pitch the bill, listen to their reasons for not pledging full-throated support, and take notes. Many congressmen feared that the polarizing nature of the issue would cause problems in their districts. They took advantage of the Pentagon’s decision to launch a study to determine the effects of repeal on the military. They would tell Murphy to come see them after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that the time was right for repeal, never imagining that might actually happen.

When that happened, Murphy, notes in hand, returned to those members and countered each of their previous reservations with the results of the study and the newly stated positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Many members found it difficult to argue with a combat veteran and fellow congressman when he looked them in the eye and unraveled their reasons for refusing to pledge support. Member by member, caucus by caucus and vote by painstaking vote, Murphy and his team clawed their way toward victory, encouraged by changing public opinion and the public support of high ranking military and civilian officials.

Murphy will be the first to tell you that the successful repeal of DADT was certainly not a one-person victory. In fact, he was the third representative to take on the issue directly. Rep Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) introduced the first bill to repeal in 2005. Unfortunately, the political climate in the legislature and the general attitude of the country was not yet ready to see the law overturned. In 2009, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) took the reins from Meehan and reintroduced the bill. When she decided to take a position with the State Department that year, she tapped Murphy as her successor in the fight to repeal DADT. Murphy attributes much of his ability to sway votes in Congress to Meehan and Tauscher’s hard work, as well as the diligent research and advocacy of organizations dedicated to LGBT equality, both within the military and beyond. Asked about some of these unsung heroes who helped him make repeal a reality, he spoke glowingly about the hard work of Emily Sussman, the former political director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Allison Herwitt, the legislative director of Human Rights Campaign.

“I spoke with Emily every single day for over a year during this fight,” he said. “She, Aubrey Sarvis (former executive director of SLDN) and Allison Herwitt are just the best, and this absolutely wouldn’t have happened without their hard work. This was a long battle. For 16 years we didn’t even have a hearing on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Their efforts allowed us to go on the offense and challenge those who weren’t supportive of true equality for our military—for the first time. That’s huge.”

Murphy also received support from Tobias Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and longtime advocate for repeal. Most memorable for Murphy was Professor Wolff’s assistance helping him prepare to cross-examine Elaine Donnelly, founder of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, when she appeared before the House Armed Services Committee in strong opposition to repeal. Murphy earned some well-deserved popularity when video of that hearing and his refusal to let Donnelly off the hook went viral on the social media site YouTube.

The successful repeal of DADT also required support in the Senate. That meant Murphy needed strong allies in the other chamber. When asked to name his counterparts in the Senate who were critical to the success of repeal, he did not hesitate. “Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman and Kirsten Gillibrand. Those three were hands down the most powerful advocates in the other chamber, helping to pave the way for marriage equality in many states and giving the president the courage to stand out against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and come out in support of marriage equality. This was the tipping point in the fight for equality.” It seems obvious now that no conversation about DADT repeal is complete without including the discussion of marriage equality and DOMA.

In taking on the repeal of DADT, Murphy knew, as did most when observing his tenacious drive for success, that he was unlikely to be re-elected, regardless of whether or not the bill passed. When asked if he believed it was the reason for his loss in the next election, he said it didn’t matter.

“So I lost re-election. Who cares? For too long, everyone looked at Washington and said ‘They’re in it for themselves—they’re in it to get re-elected.’ I went to Washington to change the country for the better. It may sound hokey, but I love this country and I was willing to do what was right, especially for something so incredibly important as equality—true equality for all.”

I wanted to know if he honestly believed that another Patrick Murphy existed, someone willing to throw the Hail Mary pass for the repeal of DOMA. I honestly wasn’t expecting a name, just the assurance that there was someone.

“I’m a big fan of Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York.” Murphy said. He described Senator Gillibrand as having “the kind of profile and guts to stand up as a young mother and senator and say ‘I’m willing to do what is right when it comes to equality. I want my friends in the LGBT community to have the same 1,800 rights that my husband and I share.’”

Murphy and Senator Gillibrand came to Congress together as freshmen, and they came with a similar mentality of making a difference. “She didn’t come to stay 40 years and get a pension,” he said.

Since moving to the Senate, Senator Gillibrand has demonstrated her unwavering support for LGBT rights. She has co-sponsored four bills relating to LGBT issues, ranging from the repeal of DADT to domestic partner benefits for federal employees. She’s a strong supporter of hate crimes legislation, and she has refined her original position on gay marriage solely as a state issue.

In a press release following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases regarding marriage equality this year, she stated, “It is well past time for the federal government to recognize the marriages of all loving and committed couples and finally put the discriminatory DOMA policy into the dustbin of history.” Clearly, Senator Gillibrand is well positioned to be the Patrick Murphy of DOMA repeal.

Though LGBT rights have been trumpeted by Democrats for years, the issues surrounding equality are becoming more palatable for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Evidence of this can be clearly seen in some bi-partisan support for the Respect for Marriage Act, which would have successfully repealed DOMA, had the bill not died with the 112th Congress. On Sept. 21, 2011, the day after President Obama signed the repeal of DADT, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida became the first Republican to co-sign the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced in the House by New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler. A long-time supporter of LGBT rights, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s bold move of support illustrates just how far we have come as a nation of tolerance in the last two decades. With the new Congress in place, the bill must be reintroduced.

The successful repeal of DADT is a brilliant example of how future progress should be pursued in the fight for equality. Though slow moving, it was the deliberate nature of the fight that ensured the issue never fell apart under pressure. Despite a national climate that was not yet ready for a military without sexual orientation blinders, advocates quietly and fiercely collected facts and worked to educate the naysayers. The support and dedication of activists and organizations dedicated to freedom and equality was essential in arming the politicians with the facts needed, in some cases gathering them directly when the Defense Department was unable to do so on its own. The lawmakers involved, including Murphy, patiently gathered support for the root of the issue—it wasn’t about military readiness or unfair treatment or defense spending. It was about standing up for what is right, even when it was unpopular.

As for Murphy’s political future, it’s unclear what role he will continue to play, though it is certain he will remain influential. Currently practicing law at Fox Rothschild in Philadelphia, he is an avid and highly sought-after guest speaker on a range of issues, including LGBT rights, and continues to write and advocate from the private sector. His leadership and allegiance to the country and the LGBT community remains strong.

And though he’s out of office, he’s certainly not out of touch. During our telephone interview, he put me on hold for 18 minutes to take a call from the White House. Getting back to me, he wouldn’t reveal the details of the call, but he assured me it was “a very positive conversation.” Clearly, this isn’t the last we’ve heard from Patrick Murphy.

Commentary by Guest Columnist Maureen McDermott Gill 

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.” – Winston Churchill

The LGBT community in America won an election trifecta in November 2012 with the re-election of President Barack Obama, the election of a record number of openly gay individuals to state and federal offices, and four wins regarding marriage equality. All of this brings to mind Winston Churchill’s famous quip: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.”

The consequences of the November 2012 election will roll out for generations. Election results suggest America is experiencing a profound cultural and political resurgence of more tolerant public speech, policies, practices and legislation toward gays, women, racial minorities, and the economically and educationally disadvantaged after a four-decade long freefall to the contrary. Put another way, the election results are a win for cultural and political liberalism, as well as justice and common sense.

Political analysts have been all over the road trying to assign credit for the historic wins of the 2012 election. At an in-depth level, historians and other social scientists will find numerous research opportunities in the myriad of political and cultural pathologies that turned the Grand Old Party into, as Louisiana’s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal put it, “the Stupid Party.”

Research will most likely locate the genesis of the GOP’s devolution in the “Southern strategy” that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan used to good effect, as well as Ronald Reagan’s empowerment of the Moral Majority—which may have parented a fierce brand of pernicious religiosity this writer and others have labeled “Christofascism.”

Photo: whitehouse.gov

However, the various demographic groups who significantly drove home the historic wins of this election also deserve, and will no doubt receive, richly textured professional analyses. Over time, such analyses will certainly become the stuff of doctoral dissertations, books, and election legends. Immediately after the election, many analysts credited gays, women, blacks, Latinos and youth with delivering the election for Obama. In fact, some analysts have found the LGBT vote to be the most decisive.

Exit polls indicate President Obama and Governor Romney captured an equal measure (49 percent each) of the straight vote; however, gay, lesbian and bisexual voters overwhelmingly cast their votes for Obama, 76 percent. Despite allegations that Obama didn’t act fast enough or as aggressively as desired in favor of gay rights, the president nonetheless was, as Newsweek magazine declared in its May 21, 2012, issue, America’s “first gay president.” Obama’s record on gay rights shows not only an empathy for the LGBT community but also, as one would hope of a constitutional lawyer, an understanding of the true legal issues.

Analysts at the Williams Institute state polling statistics show the LGBT community played a significant role in the president’s re-election. They say the LGBT vote gave Obama a 2.6 percent edge over Mitt Romney—close to the 3 percent popular vote margin by which he won. Put differently, if no one in this demographic group voted, Obama would have just squeaked by, barely winning the popular vote with less than half of a percentage point. Gallup and Pew surveys also show the importance of the LGBT vote in the presidential race.

Six openly LGBT people were elected to Congress, and Tammy Baldwin made history by becoming the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, one of the most exclusive and powerful clubs in the world. Additionally, voters elected pro-LGBT lawmakers Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Sherrod Brown in Ohio. These are significant wins. While it’s true there’s no pro-LGBT majority in Congress, which will make passage of pro-rights legislation difficult, the presence of these LGBT winners inside the Beltway, coupled with the election of gay-friendly liberals like Warren and Sherrod, strengthens the entire LGBT community.

Further, the election of openly gay individuals to the House of Representatives and Senate sends a strong message to the entire country, perhaps even the world (think Uganda), that gay Americans are an influential segment of society who have been given serious fire power by millions of gay and straight Americans.

Americans also elected gays and lesbians in record number in state elections. According to the Victory Institute, 48 states now have openly gay elected officials, Republicans, as well as Democrats. In Wisconsin, Oregon and Colorado, gay and lesbian officials now hold some of the highest positions of power.

Certainly, polling statistics can be massaged in a variety of ways to indicate that any one of the demographic groups who voted overwhelmingly for Obama carried the day, so it seems specious to declare any group more important than another—but this doesn’t mean that we cannot learn something important about each group: how that demographic impacted the election, as well as how the results of the election empower that group in new and dramatic ways.

Rephrased, the LGBT community clearly harvested the most immediate rewards this past election. What may be even more intriguing is how those wins represent a major cultural shift that, because of those wins, will be extremely hard to reverse. First and foremost, the 2012 general election demonstrates that the LGBT community has won the hearts and minds of millions of Americans and has done so—in a historic sense—with stunning speed. LGBT wins at the ballot box would never have happened had millions of Americans not come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a non-issue and matters not in an elected official—and that civil marriage is a fundamental right, and all people should be accorded their choice of partner.

Marriage equality is the most important battle facing the LGBT community; it will be the ultimate game changer. Surveys demonstrate support for same-sex marriage has been growing across the country and across all demographic groups. The most telling sign is the fact that voters in Minnesota defeated a ban on gay marriage while Maine, Maryland and Washington voted for marriage equality. These three states, along with New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont bring the total number of states that recognize same-gender marriages to eight, plus the District of Columbia. More states will likely follow soon.

In Colorado, where Democrats have regained control of both chambers at the state capitol, marriage equality legislation that failed less than a year ago almost certainly will now become law. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn recently instructed his state’s general assembly to send him a same-sex marriage bill. In January 2011, Illinois passed legislation allowing same-sex civil unions.

It’s noteworthy that Maine, Maryland and Washington all allowed some form of civil unions or domestic partnerships prior to voting for marriage equality, as did Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut. This suggests that full marriage equality follows state recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships. Along with Colorado and Illinois, other states that recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships, and thus appear poised to pass same-sex marriage laws in the near future, are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

The likelihood that public approval for same-sex marriage will slow or reverse is remote. There’s no great surprise that Gallup polling shows 73 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years of age support same-sex marriage, but polls reveal some genuine surprises among other demographic groups. Blacks historically have been less supportive of same-sex marriage than whites. According to Pew polls conducted in 2011, 49 percent of white voters favored same-sex marriage compared to 36 percent of blacks. However, a recent Edison Research poll showed 51 percent of black voters supported same-sex marriage in their states, compared to 41 percent who did not. Many believe President Obama’s public statement in favor of marriage equality played an important role in influencing this demographic.

Polls also indicate 59 percent of Hispanic voters supported same-sex marriage in their states, while 32 percent were against it, a sharp contrast to earlier surveys (2006 and 2009) that showed a much larger margin of Hispanics opposed to same-sex marriage. Further, more than 50 percent of mainline Protestants now support same-sex marriage, compared to just 32.2 percent seven years ago. Among Evangelical Christians, support increased from 11.9 percent to 20.2 percent. Even more tellingly, the Mormon Church, so famously instrumental in the passage of California’s Proposition 8, has stepped back from its political activism against same-sex marriage.

Shortly after the November election, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will review two profoundly important cases concerning marriage equality, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure. In the DOMA case, the Court will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of the same health, pension, and tax benefits it grants heterosexual married people. In the Proposition 8 case, the justices will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban when the lower court said the state of California could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California’s Supreme Court.

Gay rights advocates hope for a clean sweep in their favor but are also bracing for split decisions. On one hand, it would be welcome if the Court strikes down DOMA, but this could result in a finding that the meaning of marriage is a matter for each state to decide. Punting the ball back to the states could make a state-by-state battle for gay rights an epic battle of time and will.

However, it might be wisest to take the long, painful road and let the arc of history bend slowly. It would be wise to remember the 1973 Roe v. Wade outcome; it’s sweeping decision legalized abortion in every state at a time when few liberal states actually permitted abortion. Roe v. Wade was seen as an overarching legal decision of unmitigated proportions and created a virulent backlash that legitimized the religious right as a potent and fearsome political force. This helped propel strident conservatives into power for decades.

The reasons for this dramatic shift in public acceptance of same-sex marriage are complex, but certainly some of them can be easily identified as changing demographics, cultural maturity, rejection of fear, and the hard work done by the LGBT community itself. An area that is fascinating to explore would be the effect the “normalization of gay” has had on public perception. As more and more Americans encounter gay, lesbian and transgender people at work, in the armed forces, and in the millions of private and personal spaces of day-to-day living, it becomes increasingly more obvious to heterosexuals that gay people bleed and cry and work and die and love their partners, their children, their parents and, yes, their country, just like everyone else.

Even the most powerful propagandists cannot change what people have personally experienced and found to be true. It is the chronic exposure to those who were once presumed different—and found to not be so different—that most dramatically changes public perception. This method of change is what largely happened in the black civil rights movement, too. Segregated, blacks were seen as vastly different, and segregation maintained that difference. However, once integrated and standing on the same day-to-day playing fields of life as white people, blacks showed that they were just people, too.

Of course, civil rights legislation mandated a level playing field, and that was certainly necessary, but once put on the field together, it was soon learned that the game of life is played just about the same by everyone. In similar fashion, the integration of openly gay individuals throughout every layer of American culture has been a powerful force in changing perceptions; each and every openly gay American has been a foot soldier in the battle for equality.

Gays, like blacks, have become deeply entwined in the warp and woof of the American tapestry, and those remarkable threads cannot be removed; they add to the tensile strength of the national fabric, and, over time, it becomes unimaginable that the cloth of citizenship could have ever been woven without them.

It seems safe to assert that the LGBT community has become one of the most important power brokers in America. Politicians who fail to support gay rights in the future will do so at their own political peril. This is vastly important, not only for the LGBT community, but also for the future of all other groups at high risk for abuse and discrimination in America, such as women, minorities and the poor. Having emerged as a muscular voting bloc that refuses to be ignored, the LGBT community has marginalized the most intolerant voices that have, for far too long, exerted a malevolent influence over federal and state politicians. While this is only one brake on extremism, it is an important one, one that is profoundly changing American history.

Maureen McDermott Gill is a columnist, author and public speaker. The author of January Moon, Maureen is also a regular OpEd columnist at the York County (Maine) Journal Tribune and contributing columnist at LGBTQ Nation.com. Her second work of fiction, March Storm, will be published in early 2013, and what she calls a “history book for adults,” Daylight & Déjà vu, will follow mid-year. Email her at windycityauthor@gmail.com and visit www.maureengill.net, or  follow her on Twitter @windycityauthor. The opinions expressed in this column are hers alone and do not necessarily represent the view of OutServe-SLDN or OutServe Magazine.

For those not familiar with the procedural machinations of the Supreme Court, today the Court ordered writs of certiorari, aka approval for judicial review, to hear two landmark cases concerning same-sex marriage in America.  In order for the Court to take a case, only four Justices need to approve a case (of course five votes are ultimately needed to decide it).  With that being said, what really matters when the Court decides to hear a case is what “questions presented” the Justices ask the parties in a case to argue to them, and that is why today was so important.  More on this in just a moment.

For court watchers, today was so suspenseful because the Court had ten different cases concerning same-sex marriage to choose from when they met in conference.  Would they take the case out of Massachusetts, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (profiled in this magazine in our May/June 2011 issue), thus denying a full review by the Supreme Court since Justice Elena Kagan would likely have recused herself due to prior work on the case?  Or would the court take the famous “Prop 8” case out of California, where the blockbuster lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen (famous for being on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 election) who are arguing the pro-gay marriage side?

At 3:13 eastern time today, the Court put all that speculation to rest.  It would take not one, but two same-sex marriage cases.  The first, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case) has the court considering perhaps the most monumental judicial question of our lifetimes: does the constitution allow for states to ban marriage between same-sex couples?  The Justices could have gone small, asking the parties to answer only case-specific questions, for example, only reviewing whether the act of taking away a right to marry was constitutional, a decision whose implications would have only affected the citizens in California.  If you remember, gay marriage was legal for a short time in California until voters in 2008 took that right away.  But the Court did not take up that narrower question.

The second case the Supreme Court granted review on, United States v. Windsor, concerns Edie Windsor and her now deceased spouse Thea Spyer.  The two had lived together as registered domestic partners since 1993.  When Windsor’s wife died in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,053 in estate taxes that she would not have had to pay if the federal government recognized their marriage.  The case directly challenges section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of over 1,000 federal benefits.  More broadly, this case concerns issues of federalism, specifically what power states have to enforce certain rights and how the federal government can influence states to do its bidding.

Of the two cases at issue here, the Windsor case looks particularly appealing for a win, as its ruling could potentially not be as sweeping in scope.  If the court were to rule in favor of Windsor, for example, it would not necessarily mean that DOMA would be completely overturned; in fact, the Court could rule that only section three is unconstitutional and still allow the states to individually enforce the other sections of DOMA as they saw fit.  Crucially, the powerful emotional story of Edie and Thea could possibly sway enough Justices with more conservative notions of what it means to be married into a pro same-sex marriage position.

Finally, the Court in its order today also allowed for another possible outcome: none at all.  In a rare move, the Court issued questions it wanted answered to parties on both sides of both cases (usually the questions are presented to the Justices and they pick which ones they want to consider).   The court asked if both parties had standing to even challenge the case, in other words, could these petitioners even challenge the law.  Theoretically, the Justices could rule that neither party has standing and dismiss both cases from the Court until the issue resurfaces with parties that do indeed have standing.  This is unlikely, but still well within the realm of possibility.

The only sure thing we know from today is that at some point around March, the Supreme Court for the very first time will consider issues of same-sex rights as it relates to marriage.  A momentous, albeit terrifying moment for many gay and lesbian Americans to be sure.  At a time where public opinion is rapidly shifting to a more inclusive definition of marriage, the Supreme Court has firmly inserted itself into this historic debate.  Will the Court aim for a Brown v. Board of Education type of outcome?  Only time will tell of course, but this writer (not so) secretly thinks yes.

Next up: oral arguments!

–

This article is the sole opinion of OutServe Magazine contributors and does not reflect the position or official endorsement of OutServe-SLDN organization.

In a historic moment for the United States, President Barack Obama has been reelected as the 44^th President, the first African American to win reelection in our nation’s history.  OutServe-SLDN newly installed Executive Director, Allyson Robinson, praised tonight’s decision:  “It’s clear from tonight’s results that Americans have no desire to turn the clock back on our drive to full equality.”

President Obama, who famously ended the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy” (DADT), signed the historic Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, came out in support of marriage equality, and extended hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples, has done more to increase equality for the LGBT community than any sitting president.  “The President knows that the repeal of DADT was not the end, but just the beginning,” writes Robinson, “Now is the time to step on the gas to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and ensure that all service members and their families are treated equally by our military.  “

Despite the gains made in recent years with regards to open service in the military, transgender men and women still face an uphill climb to serve openly and without fear of discharge.  Robinson echoes this reality in her statement, “And now is the time to say once and for all that any qualified American who wants to serve our country in uniform should not face discrimination or harassment because of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The race tonight culminates a seemingly two year campaign, where billions of dollars, twenty-plus debates, and a robust get-out-the-vote effort from both sides ended in President Obama’s victory.

By Eddy Sweeney

Is it just me or does it seem like the 2012 campaign has been going on since the founding of our esteemed Republic?  As a self-professed political junkie, who spends any spare moment frantically checking Twitter, the Political Wire, or Real Clear Politics for new polling updates, even I’m exhausted.  But alas, in less than 24 hours, the results of this year’s historic election will finally be revealed.

OutServe Magazine will not formally endorse candidates for political office or represent any political party in these pages.  But we do realize that our readers have a keen interest in politics and thus will provide a medium for those who want to know what to look for on Tuesday to see how (their) political party might end up.   Below are a list of key ballot initiatives and races that will help determine which party will control both the White House and Congress this coming January. 

The House

It is widely assumed among both Democrats and Republicans alike, that the Democrats will fall far short of the 25 House seats they need to regain control of the lower chamber.  According to the Washington Post’s Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, it seems likely that the Democrats will make only marginal inroads, with gains in the House likely to be in the mid-single or low double digits.  Based on the current predictions, our magazine predicts Republicans will maintain control of the House.

The Senate    

If you were to ask any political observer a year ago about the chances of the Senate switching parties, most would tell you that the Republicans were sure to wrest control of the chamber in the 2012 election.  Part of the reason for this is based on pure math: because of strong Democratic gains in 2006, the Democrats are defending 23 Senate seats to the Republican’s 10.  Furthermore, the states that the Democrats are defending seats in are mostly red or swing states, such as Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Florida, Virginia, and North Dakota.

However, due to a series of major political gaffes (Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments in August in the Missouri race), unexpected retirements (Olympia Snowe in Maine), or divisive primaries that forced out establishment Republicans in lieu of Tea Party conservatives (Indiana), it seems that the Democrats will cling to their majority…barely.  In order for the Republicans to wrest control of the Senate, they need to win a net gain of four seats (if President Obama is reelected) or three (if Governor Romney is elected, with the VP breaking the 50/50 tie).  Due to the above-mentioned events and Democrats running a stronger than expected campaign in many of the States alluded to above, our magazine predicts control of the Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands.

The Presidency

Despite the constant campaigning, money, and debates, the race is essentially where it started off back when Governor Romney won the Republican primary; tied, with President Obama the slight favorite.  Since the winner in our system is the person who receives 270 electoral votes and not the majority popular vote, it’s instructive to look at the key swing states to tease out who might emerge victorious on election night.

Anyone with an active pulse will know that the most hotly competitive states this cycle are Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and Wisconsin in that order.  There are others (Nevada, North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) but they are likely already in either President Obama or Governor Romney’s column.  During election night, key indicators on which way the election will go ultimately rest, in my opinion, on three states: Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.

If President Obama wins any of those three states, he is almost guaranteed reelection.  For Governor Romney, he needs to win all of those states in order to win (based on current state by state projections), arguably a much tougher challenge.  President Obama could lose Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and even New Hampshire, and still win.  Governor Romney clearly has the tougher path to 270.  Due to these constraints, this magazine predicts a second term for President Barack Obama.

Other things to watch

Four states will be considering the issue of same-sex marriage; Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota.  In three states it will be for an affirmative position on the issue, and in one (Minnesota) the ballot initiative seeks to define marriage in the Minnesota constitution as between a man and a woman.

Wisconsin might be the first state to elect an open lesbian to the United States Senate in Representative Tammy Baldwin.  Rep. Baldwin is currently locked in a dead heat with former Governor Tommy Thompson.

Massachusetts might elect the House’s first openly gay Republican in its 6^th Congressional district Tuesday, Richard Tisei.  Tisei is looking to unseat Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), current polling suggests a tight race with Tisei holding the advantage.

This is the first presidential election debate cycle in 20 years to omit any question of whether gays, lesbians and bisexuals should be able to serve openly in the military.  With President Obama signing DADT repeal into law, and it taking effect more than a year ago with no discernible impact on military effectiveness, there’s only the slimmest of chances it will be re-instituted under a GOP White House.

What’s missing however, is something that SHOULD have been discussed – the future of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as Gov. Romney’s pledge to push for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. In recent comments, Gov. Romney’s campaign has said he believes hospital visitation rights for same-gender couples are an issue that should be put before voters at the state level.

The issue has been suppressed as the conversation has been redirected toward the issue of the economy.

For members of the military who identify as LGBT, the issues of DOMA and marriage equality ARE economic issues.

The President is in a very different place on these issues than this opponent.  He has stopped defending challenges to DOMA in the federal courts.  He has become the first sitting President in our nation’s history to publicly support marriage equality for LGBT couples.  He has issued an executive directive to incentive equal visitation rights at hospitals receiving federal money. He signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill into law.  He has invited LGBT military families to White House events, and made it clear that all Americans deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

Most of us who are connected with the LGBT community are very aware of where the President stands.  We may be equally aware of where Gov. Romney stands.

Unfortunately, the debates didn’t draw this line between the two men for the general public.  The extreme ends of the civil rights spectrum they represent is significant.  One man would support a repeal of DOMA, the other would push to make it ironclad by supporting efforts to write discrimination into our nation’s Constitution.

It is up to those affected to reach out and share this important distinction with friends and family, as soon as possible.

Without DOMA’s demise, military same-gender families will continue to bear an extra financial burden and have to jump through hoops to be a part of the larger military family.  They will pay out of pocket for moving their family during a PCS. They will continue to be denied access to military healthcare, base facilities, and certain support services available only to military spouses.

This is an economic issue, just as much as it is an issue of dignity, respect, and integrity.  Don’t let your friends choose their candidate until they have the entire story.  Your rights depend on informed voters doing the right thing.

Congressman Jim McDermott (WA-7) and Congressman Leonard Boswell (IA-3) urged leaders of the U.S. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee this week, to work with them in getting the Pentagon to use all of its unspent suicide prevention funds to reach more service members as soon as possible, and to go even further with higher funding next year.

In July, the McDermott-Boswell amendment that would increase critical funding for suicide prevention for active duty military by $10 million passed with strong support in the House Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2013.

“The Pentagon hasn’t spent the money that it has for suicide prevention for this year – and that money wasn’t nearly enough money to reach all the soldiers who need help. Now we are hearing about bureaucratic technicalities at the Pentagon that are preventing them from acting. This is unconscionable,” said Congressman McDermott. “The Pentagon is funded to help soldiers and needs to do much more on the epidemic of suicides. As we commemorate National Suicide Prevention Week, we are calling on the Pentagon to move much faster.”

Congressman Boswell added, “We lose a soldier to suicide every day, a record pace that is driving the number of military suicides to all-time highs. As I said on the House floor in July, this is a national epidemic that requires immediate Congressional action to provide the necessary resources to prevent these tragedies from happening. With this year’s defense appropriations legislation at a standstill, and only days remaining in the legislative calendar, we urge leaders to act on freeing up the existing funds for soldier suicide prevention and outreach.”

Last year, Congress increased program funding by more than $8 million for suicide prevention under the Defense Health Program. However, a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense in June revealed that the additional funding remains largely unspent.

Testifying on behalf of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, witness Charles Curie explained that these funds “must be used for healthcare delivery programs and services and not for education and training or research and development programs.”

He went on to say:

Requiring additional funding to be spent on treatment is not going help the Services get in “front” of this problem. The Services should have the authority to spend it on “program evaluation” and prevention efforts and not just on healthcare delivery.

Therefore, AFSP requests that this Committee add clarifying language to the FY 13 Defense Appropriations bill that would allow for these dollars to be spent on pre-medical related prevention, education, and outreach programs.

Several weeks ago, the Army released suicide data for the month of July indicating the highest one-month tally of suicides in recent Army history.

“At a time when the suicide rate for active duty service members and reservists is at an all-time high, it is unconscionable that we would allow a technicality to block funds that could be used to strengthen outreach and prevention,” Boswell and McDermott said in their September 13 letter to leaders of the U.S. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

“With legislation stalled in the Senate and little time remaining on the legislative calendar, we ask for your immediate attention to this matter If we can enable these funds to more quickly facilitate programs for prevention, education and outreach, then we urge you to push to include clarifying language in the continuing resolution,” Boswell and McDermott concluded. “We cannot wait until after the election to help the heroes get the assistance they deserve.”

I was impressed by the invitation of an LGBT group to be among those with an influential voice in the Republican National Convention in Tampa this week.

The Log Cabin Republicans were able to insert themselves into the platform debates this last week at the official invitation of the Republican National Convention. Four years ago, this invitation would have never have come, but the people who make up the RNC seem to be shifting toward inclusiveness.

In a letter to the platform committee, the Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry wrote, “Giving people more personal freedom is the foundation of the Republican Party, which, as the Party of Lincoln, has a proud tradition of expanding liberties. We respectfully request that the GOP honor that tradition as it considers how to address the freedom to marry in its plank.”

Civil unions and Defense of Marriage Act repeal were among the discussions, but neither made it onto the platform. While there is no official endorsement over a party platform, LCR was not complimentary of the final document:

“The obsessive exclusion of gay couples, including military families, from the rights and responsibilities of marriage, combined with bizarre rhetoric about ‘hate campaigns’ and ‘the homosexual rights agenda’ are clear signs of desperation among social conservatives who know that public opinion is rapidly turning in favor of equality,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “Unfortunately, what voters can’t see in this document is the significant debate within the Committee. We were pleased to see vigorous debate on amendments in support of civil unions and to delete language regarding DOMA. While these measures failed, the future direction of our party clearly trends toward inclusion.”

LCR did, however, reported an improvement compared to the 2008 document for LGBT Americans such as:

• The exclusion of any language calling for the return of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell;”
• No reference to ‘incompatibility of homosexuality with military service;’
• Language on refugees that no longer presents a barrier for asylum of LGBT people who are persecuted and threatened with execution in places like Iran; and
• Inclusion of language recognizing that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

Others groups were not as keen on the inclusive language noted in the last bullet. Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign, and David Brock, founder of American Bridge 21st Century, had this to say about the marriage inequality language included in the platform:

“For the Republican Party to embrace policies of separate-and-unequal, and in the same paragraph claim to ‘embrace the principle that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity and respect,’ is hypocrisy at its most offensive. It is a clear sign of the Republican agenda to end and then roll back the rights and responsibilities gay Americans and our families have achieved in recent years.”

Ironically, no Republican candidate for President has ever followed the party’s platform verbatim, anyway.

While the liberal American Bridge political action committee has a very valid point, it should not be overlooked that for the first time ever, there was a voice taking on the GOP’s outdated, outmoded, out-of-touch views on LGBT issues; and that voice didn’t have a home-court advantage. LCR made some incredible strides this week just by getting in the door.

I’m not saying the final Republican platform is even close to ideal. But I do understand the necessity for a conservative political group with a liberal social agenda—one who has managed to get their camel’s nose under the tent flap of the Republican National Convention—to not hand jam the entire LGBT agenda down the throats of their conservative brethren.

Said Cooper, “Only by being in the room and speaking conservative to conservative will we succeed in building a stronger and more inclusive Republican party.”

Having worked on Capitol Hill for a few years, the snail’s pace at which controversial legislation moves is infuriating, but a reality. We cannot have expected a Republican platform that endorsed DOMA repeal. While sad, that’s the reality in a party highly influenced by the religious right and bygone generations. It was important to have an LGBT voice in the process and achieve the things they were actually able to achieve, even if the achievements were minutia. It was the first time at the table. We shouldn’t have expected miracles.

I will never forget that it was LCR’s behind-the-scenes efforts to sway the few Republican votes necessary to ditch “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And as a gay man in uniform, because of that, they get the benefit of doubt in my mind that the subtle and slow effect they have on our nation’s more conservative party will benefit the collective needs of all Americans in the event the Republican party takes the White House come November.

We all need to keep working the common ground all LGBT folks share and not get distracted by our community’s infighting over traditional party politics.

Please note, these views are my own and do not reflect the official stance of OutServe, OutServe Magazine, or the Air Force.

A retired Navy Captain has written a letter to Gov. Bob McDonnell, chair of the national Republican Party platform committee, asking to address the committee in support of the freedom to marry and the recognition of all marriages when it meets in Tampa next week. Navy Capt. Joan Darrah requested to share the couple’s personal story and illustrate to the committee how its support for marriage equality is in keeping with the ideology of the GOP.

“If given the opportunity, we will testify in support of the inclusion in the Republican platform of both the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the right of same-gender couples to marry and for those marriages to be recognized by our federal government. Quite simply, these objectives correspond with the ideals of the Republican Party – opposition to government intrusion in people’s lives and a modern military that supports all service members and their families,” Darrah said today.

Darrah served nearly two decades in the U.S. Navy, including under the now-repealed discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law. On Sept. 11, 2001, at 8:30 a.m., she attended a meeting in the Pentagon, leaving the meeting promptly at 9:30 a.m. At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space she had been less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of her colleagues.

“Whenever I recount the events of that day, I think of my wife and how she would have been one of the last people to know that I had been killed, because nowhere in my paperwork or emergency contact information had I dared to list her name. Fortunately, because DADT has been repealed, gay and lesbian service members can now serve openly without the fear of discharge,” Darrah writes in the letter.

Darrah and her wife, Lynne Kennedy, are plaintiffs in McLaughlin v. Panetta,  a case in which SLDN represents eight married gay and lesbian service member and veteran couples seeking the same recognition, supports, and benefits as their straight, married colleagues. Even now with DADT off the books, DOMA and other federal laws prevent the military from treating all service members, veterans, and their families the same. This includes denial of health care, death benefits, and burial in national cemeteries.

“Gay and lesbian service members and their families are making the same sacrifices daily as their heterosexual counterparts. Should they not be afforded the same recognition, benefits, and support services from the country they serve? Should they not receive the same support from their “military family?” asked Darrah in her letter today.

In July, Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) Charlie Morgan and her wife, Karen, testified before the national Democratic leaders drafting the party’s 2012 platform. The freedom to marry is expected to be included in a final version of the Democratic platform.

To view the full text of Darrah’s letter, click here.