Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit

[Ryan Ruck]

Commission Finds ‘No Compelling Medical Reason’ To Exclude Transgender Americans From Military

March 13, 2014

An independent commission led by a former U.S. surgeon general has concluded there “is no compelling medical reason” for the U.S. armed forces to prohibit transgender Americans from serving and that President Barack Obama could lift the decades-old ban without approval from Congress, according to a report being released Thursday.

The report said Department of Defense regulations designed to keep transgender people from joining or remaining in the military on the grounds of psychological and physical unfitness are based on outdated beliefs that require thousands of current service members either to leave the service or to forego the medical procedures and other changes that could align their bodies and gender identities.

“We determined not only that there is no compelling medical reason for the ban, but also that the ban itself is an expensive, damaging and unfair barrier to health care access for the approximately 15,450 transgender personnel who serve currently in the active, Guard and reserve components,” said the commission led by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who served as surgeon general during Bill Clinton’s first term as president, and Rear Adm. Alan Steinman, a former chief health and safety director for the Coast Guard.

The panel, convened by a think tank at San Francisco State University, said the ban has existed for several decades and apparently was derived in part from the psychiatric establishment’s consensus, since revised, that gender identity issues amounted to a mental disorder.

The ban also appears based on the assumption that providing hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgeries would be too difficult, disruptive and expensive. But the commission rejected those notions as inconsistent with modern medical practice and the scope of health care services routinely provided to non-transgender military personnel.

“I hope their takeaway will be we should evaluate every one of our people on the basis of their ability and what they can do, and if they have a condition we can treat we would treat it like we would treat anyone else,” Elders said in an interview with The Associated Press, which was provided along with the report ahead of official release.

At least a dozen nations, including Australia, Canada, England and Israel, allow military service by transgender individuals. Transgender rights advocates have been lobbying the Pentagon to revisit the blanket ban in the U.S. since Congress in 2010 repealed the law that barred gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from openly serving in the military

“At this time there are no plans to change the department’s policy and regulations which do not allow transgender individuals to serve in the U.S. military,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a defense department spokesman.

The commission argued that facilitating gender transitions “would place almost no burden on the military,” adding that a relatively small number of active and reserve service members would elect to undergo transition-related surgeries and that only a fraction might suffer complications that would prevent them from serving. It estimated that 230 transgender people a year would seek such surgery at an average cost of about $30,000.

Retired Brigadier General Thomas Kolditz, a former Army commander and West Point professor on the commission, said he thinks allowing transgender people to serve openly would reduce gender-based harassment, assaults and suicides while enhancing national security.

“When you closet someone, you create a security risk, and we don’t need another Chelsea Manning,” Kolditz said, referring to the soldier formerly known as Bradley Manning who came out as transgender after being sentenced for leaking classified documents to the website WikiLeaks.

But Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, whose group opposed the repeal of the ban on openly gay troops, predicted that putting transgender people in barracks, showers and other sex-segregated could cause sexual assaults to increase and infringe on the privacy of non-transgender personnel.

“This is putting an extra burden on men and women in the military that they certainly don’t need and they don’t deserve,” Donnelly said.

The commission recommends the president issue an executive order instructing the Department of Defense to amend its regulations so transgender people are no longer automatically barred. The Pentagon then would need to develop rules for assigning service members who are transitioning, said Palm Center Executive Director Aaron Belkin, whose San Francisco State-based think tank commissioned the report.

The Palm Center, which previously researched “don’t ask, don’t tell,” is funded in part by a $1.3 million grant from Jennifer Pritzker, a billionaire former Army lieutenant colonel who came out as transgender last year.

The Williams Institute, a think-tank based at UCLA, estimates about 15,500 transgender personnel are currently serving, nearly all under their birth genders and not transitioning in an appearance-altering way.

Army Reserve Capt. Sage Fox, 41, was one until recently. Following a deployment to Kuwait, Fox started taking female hormones last year. In November, with her hair getting long and her voice higher, she notified her battalion commander, whom she says expressed support. At drill time, an announcement was made to 400 colleagues at the B.T. Collins Reserve Center in Sacramento.

For a few days, Fox thought she might escape the ban. But then she was informed she had been placed on inactive status.

“When I transitioned, I wasn’t just a good officer, I became a better officer because I didn’t have to deal with that conflict anymore,” she said.

[vector7]

Obama Told Military Leaders: Accept Gays In Military Or Step Down, Admiral Says


In a meeting with the heads of the five service branches in 2010, President Obama offered the leaders a choice: Support my efforts to end the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, or resign, the Commandant of the Coast Guard said.

In a video obtained by BuzzFeed via a Freedom of Information Act request, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp revealed that Obama was unwilling to compromise with service leaders over DADT during a meeting in 2010. “We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do.’ I cannot divulge everything he said to us, that’s private communications within the Oval Office, but if we didn’t agree with it — if any of us didn’t agree with it — we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things,” he said.

Papp talked about the meeting during a Q&A session with U.S. Coast Guard Academy cadets following a leadership address to the corps on Jan 8. The admiral was asked how officers should respond to policies that they disagreed with but were required to enforce. “If I disagree morally with [a policy], it’s my obligation to voice that, regardless of the risk it might give my career,” he said. “I’ve been in those situations. I’ve been fortunate to have good leaders that have appreciated that.” Using himself as an example, Papp said it was OK for leaders to “not be thrilled” with a certain regulation, but if they didn’t “see anything terribly wrong with it,” it was their job as officers to support and enforce it.

The admiral, who will be retiring from active duty on May 30, added that he thought the U.S. military made the right decision by abolishing DADT.
In a 2008 interview, then-Senator Obama told The Advocate that he wouldn’t make support of DADt’s repeal “a litmus test” for his military leaders. “What I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.”

BuzzFeed has reached out to the White House for comment.

Admiral Papp discusses DADT at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn.:

Video: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/o...128182_2704196

[American Patriot]

NOW we know why so many admirals and generals have been "retired" early, or removed.

[Ryan Ruck]

Picture from the Marine Corps Sergeant's Course.

[American Patriot]

Hmmm... I think I'm changing my mind about gays in the military is that image below is what it looks like... /chuckles

HAGEL SAYS MILITARY MUST RECONSIDER TRANSGENDER BAN

Posted on May 12, 2014




CS Monitor: “The prohibition on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military “continually should be reviewed,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Sunday. Hagel did not indicate whether he believes the policy should be overturned. However, he said “every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have an opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it.””

The story continues to define a transgender.

Congress opened military service to gays in 2010

.


CS Monitor- Chuck Hagel: Transgender ban in military should be reviewed

[Ryan Ruck]

Kirtland Air Force Base To Host LGBT Pride Picnic

First ever pride picnic scheduled for Thursday

June 25, 2014

Kirtland Air Force Base will celebrate their Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender members at a Thursday picnic.

"I say hooray for them. In army talk, it would be 'hu-ah,'" veteran Roger P. Knight said.

Just three years ago, it was forbidden to be openly gay in the military. A lot has happened since then. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was abolished and the Department of Defense announced same-sex couples will qualify for the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

But even with those changes, a same-sex couple said they were denied military benefits at Kirtland last September. It happened days after military dependents were supposed to receive ID cards.

Now, Kirtland is embracing the LGBT community in a historic way. For the first time ever, the base will host a pride picnic on Thursday from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Millennium Park. The cost is $5.

"I think it's an outstanding idea. I'm glad the Air Force has come through on something like this. They have been slow at almost everything," Knight said.

Our media partners at the Albuquerque Journal spoke with Dr. David Hardy who helped jump-start the effort for the picnic. He said he's glad to see the LGBT community is truly being recognized as part of the Air Force family.

[American Patriot]

President Lucifer’s Pentagon uses she-male to recruit transgenders

Posted on June 27, 2014 by Dr. Eowyn | 2 Comments
Remember that recent Time magazine cover trumpeting that we are at a “transgender tipping point” and that trannies are “America’s next civil rights frontier”?

Every day since, we are discovering just what that means.
First, we discovered that the POS ended a 30-year-old ban on Medicare coverage for gender-reassignment surgery, which means the money taken out of your monthly paychecks as Medicare taxes will now pay for gruesome medically-unnecessary cosmetic surgeries of breast implants, penis and testicles excision, and gouging out a wound as a pretend vagina.
But there’s more!
It’s not enough that the Obama regime overturned the military’s long-standing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy on homosexuals, now the POS is intent on recruiting she-males into the U.S. military.
Never mind that, according to a UCLA LGBT research think tank, the Williams Institute, only a very small minority of U.S. adults, 3.5% or 9 million Americans, identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and a very tiny miniscule of U.S. adults, 0.3%, are “transgender.”
Despite that, while our military’s budget is slashed and veterans are denied health care by being placed on interminable “waiting” lists in VA hospitals across America, the Pentagon is spending precious resources on a publicity effort to recruit transgenders, using as their poster “girl,” former SEAL Team 6 senior chief petty officer Christopher Beck who went under the knife to become a “woman” named Kristin Beck.
Message to Chris/Kristin Beck:
No matter what grotesque surgery you undergo and what grotesque lifelong hormones you ingest, biologically — that is, your chromosomes and DNA — you are and will always be a male. That is why psychiatrist Joseph Berger, M.D., says from a medical and scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a transgendered person.

Bill Gertz reports for The Washington Times, June 26, 2014:
A former member of SEAL Team 6 has become the poster girl for a Pentagon effort to include transgenders — people who have undergone sex-change operations — in the ranks.


Kristin Beck, formerly Senior Chief Petty Officer Christopher Beck, spoke recently at several high-profile events at intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to promote the integration of transgenders. “Transgender service in the armed forces, yes it will happen soon,” she said on Twitter.


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, among the most politically correct Pentagon chiefs of the past several decades, fueled the effort within the Pentagon to integrate transgenders in May when he said the policy of banning transgenders should be reviewed continually. The transgender drive is the latest element of the Obama administration’s social engineering within the U.S. military.


The Pentagon currently defines transgenders as sexual deviants.


Among Ms. Beck’s recent appearances were speeches at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, according to the DIA and her Twitter feed. She also was scheduled to speak to the Multicultural Heritage Committee at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, although one defense official said it is not clear how transgenderism fits within the multicultural spectrum.


Ms. Beck, author of “Warrior Princess,” spoke to the DIA on June 18 as part of the intelligence agency’s annual Pride Month — formerly Gay Pride Month but now expanded to include a host of sexually related terms, including transgenders. She received an award from DIA Director Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn at the event.


According to DIA’s newsletter, Ms. Beck, in her remarks, pushed for allowing transgenders in uniform. She said the Pentagon should stop defining people by external appearances and accept what they say they are on the inside. “We are all, all of us, created equal, and we all deserve equal justice,” she said, explaining how she hid her true sexual identity during her military career.


As a man, Ms. Beck was part of SEAL Teams 1, 5 and 6 and was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Since sex reassignment last year, Ms. Beck has sought to promote gay, bisexual and transgender acceptance in the military.

“The world is looking at us,” Ms. Beck told the DIA. “You can change the wallpaper, but I’m still right here. I can still do the job I was doing in uniform.”
The DIA said its event was designed to promote education and diversity in the workplace.


A Pentagon official critical of the sexual-diversity campaign said it was a waste of money.


Read the rest of the WT article here.


Maybe this explains why the POS is so intent on transgenders: see “Michelle Obama is a transexual?“


~Eowyn

[Ryan Ruck]

At Ease: Obama Eyes Transgendered Troops

August 26, 2014

Having already lifted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays in the military, the Pentagon “likely will” allow transgendered Americans to serve openly in the military where 15,500 now secretly serve, according to a new report issued by top former generals.

Three of the top brass, endorsing the deployment of transgendered troops, also said their effort has the support of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and President Obama.

In a statement accompanying the 29-page report issued Tuesday, they said, “Our conclusion is that allowing transgender personnel to serve openly is administratively feasible and will not be burdensome or complicated. Three months have passed since Defense Secretary Hagel announced a willingness to review the military's ban on transgender service, an effort the White House indicated it supports.”

The three are retired Maj. Gen. Gale S. Pollock, former acting surgeon general of the Army; Brig. Gen. Clara Adams-Ender, former chief of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps; and Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Kolditz, a Yale University professor and professor emeritus at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he led the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership.

The report added, “In May 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated that he is open to reviewing the rules that govern service by transgender people, an estimated 15,500 of whom serve currently in the U.S. armed forces. Following his remarks, a White House spokesperson indicated that the administration supports Secretary Hagel’s openness to a regulatory review.

“While the timing of any future policy revision is unknown, the U.S. armed forces likely will, at some point, join the 18 foreign nations and NATO allies that allow transgender personnel to serve openly.”

The report said changing the policy is up to the president. Unlike the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban repealed by Congress, the transgender ban falls “under the authority and jurisdiction of the president and secretary of defense,” said the “Report of the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service” published by the Palm Center, an arm of San Francisco State University.

Transgendered Americans don’t see themselves as the sex they were born with and sometimes undergo hormone treatment or sex change surgery. The report suggested that the military allow those in the military who feel that way to get the medical care they need.

And once they make the change, the Pentagon should follow the British model in letting them wear the gender-appropriate uniform they feel most comfortable in.

The report said allowing transgenders to serve “reflects the core military values and principles that all military personnel should serve with honor and integrity, which means that they should not have to lie about who they are.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Combat Pilot Who Tried To Halt Lesbian Kissing Episode Faces Discharge

November 12, 2014

The Army is moving to discharge a decorated combat pilot who intervened to stop two lesbian officers from showing what he considered inappropriate affection on the dance floor during a full-dress formal ball at Fort Drum, New York, in 2012.

Lt. Col. Christopher Downey, who was once assigned to the White House and completed tours in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, ended up being convicted administratively of assaulting a soldier trying to videotape the kissing and grabbing. Col. Downey’s attorney, Richard Thompson, says his client merely pushed down the camera to prevent photos and video that could end up on social media.

Mr. Thompson said Col. Downey’s commanding officer also convicted him of violating the directive that ended the ban on gays openly serving in the military.

“It’s political correctness run wild,” Mr. Thompson said. “Military rules do not apply to lesbian officers because of political correctness.”

Col. Downey won early battle with the Army last year. A special three-officer “show cause” board reviewed the punishment and unanimously ruled that the evidence showed he did not violate Army rules.

“The allegation of conduct unbecoming an officer … is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence,” the board wrote. “The findings do not warrant separation.”

Yet Col. Downey still faces separation by an Army forced-retirement board that began meeting this week.

On the night of April 14, 2012, seven months after President Obama lifted the ban on acknowledged gays in the military, Col. Downey moved to the dance floor to caution the two lesbian officers, a second lieutenant and a captain.

A warrant officer had approached Col. Downey and complained that their prolonged French kissing, buttocks grabbing and disrobing of Army jackets violated Army rules against inappropriate displays of public affection while in uniform on base, his attorney said.

He said the captain, who since has left the Army, complained that she and her girlfriend, whom she later married and then divorced, were victims of discrimination.

“Lt. Col. Downey gave his all to the Army and to the country he loves, yet the Army he so loyally served threw him under the bus merely to avoid negative press from the homosexual community,” Mr. Thompson said.

Suing the service

Mr. Thompson, who heads the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced Thursday that he had filed suit against the Army in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit accuses the Army of violating Col. Downey’s constitutional rights by preventing him from adequately defending himself and asks a federal judge to overturn the convictions. It also seeks Col. Downey’s reinstatement to the promotion list and to the roster for attending the Army War College.

An Army spokesman at the Pentagon said it is long-standing policy not to comment on pending litigation.

As it stands, Col. Downey, who is stationed at the Pentagon, is sure to be discharged by a forced-retirement meeting this week.

Amid a major downsizing of troops driven by budget cuts, the Army is culling its officer corps. Col. Downey has two career-ending reprimands in his file issued by Maj. Gen. Mark A. Milley, at the time commander of the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum.

Gen. Milley is now a four-star general commanding U.S. Army Forces Command.

The April 2012 ball was supposed to be a joyous time for the soldiers of an aviation task force commanded by Col. Downey. His soldiers had just returned from a combat tour in Afghanistan’s violent Kunar province. In dress uniforms, soldiers collectively were celebrating a number of unit citations.

His records show that Col. Downey has led an exceptional 24-year career. Once an enlisted soldier, he served as a presidential airlift coordinator for the White House from 2008 to 2010. He has logged more than 1,000 combat flight hours and earned three Bronze Stars and seven Air Medals, one with a “V” device for valor.

According to the citation for that award, while flying a Kiowa Warrior scout/attack helicopter on May 25, 2011, Col. Downey showed “complete disregard for his own safety while initiating multiple engagements against an enemy with superior fields of fire over friendly forces. His actions were decisive in saving the lives of soldiers on the ground.”

According to Mr. Thompson and his client’s complaint, this is how events unfolded:

At one point in the evening, attention shifted to the lesbian officers on the dance floor.

With the repeal of the military ban on open gays, local Army bases issued several edicts and the Pentagon warned military personnel that rules still applied against excessive public displays of affection on bases. They tasked commanders to enforce those rules.

When an officer complained to Col. Downey, he moved onto the dance floor to caution the two women.

“Col. Downey asked the female officers to alter their behavior and the situation was resolved,” the lawsuit says.

As he approached the two officers, he pushed away the camera, which apparently hit the soldier’s nose. The solider did not file a complaint.

“Astonishingly, the soldier who Lt. Col. Downey was alleged to have assaulted later stated that he was not the victim of an assault, and that he knew Lt. Col. Downey never intended to harm him,” Mr. Thompson said.

The lawsuit states: “He simply sought to lower the camera and used no more than the slight movement necessary to accomplish this legitimate and lawful objective.”

But the female captain filed a complaint against the command sergeant major, who, after Col. Downey left the dance floor, confronted the two lesbians. She claimed the sergeant major pushed her; he denied the charge and later chose to retire.

The captain also went on social media to proclaim that she had been the victim of a hate crime by the sergeant major.

“I was just shoved across the dance floor by my command sergeant major for being gay,” she wrote, according to the lawsuit.

Witness statements

The officer appointed to investigate the captain’s complaint heard about the camera incident. He was advised by his legal counsel to investigate Col. Downey for assault.

The investigator’s report to Gen. Milley said he could not determine whether heterosexual conduct on the dance floor violated the rules, but he determined that the lesbians did not exceed appropriate shows of affection.

Witnesses, however, said otherwise.

The warrant officer who alerted Col. Downey told the investigator: “They were kissing each other for long periods of time. I began watching what was happening on the dance floor now, along with several other people in my immediate vicinity. A scene developed with a large number of people taking pictures with their phones and personal cameras. … In my opinion, it was beginning to resemble a scene from a spring break party.”

An enlisted solider said: “We were noticing how these two officers were dancing together, kissing and pretty much taking each other’s Class A’s jackets off while dancing. At first — it was pretty shocking, yes, because you’re not supposed to see that kind of behavior in uniform, especially from two officers.”

A female staff sergeant said: “I mean, they were, like, full-blown, like, making out, grabbing each other on the butt, stuff like that. I didn’t see any other couple to the extent that they were at.”

The hearing before Gen. Milley turned out to be a kangaroo court, according to the Thomas More Law Center, the nonprofit public interest firm handling Col. Downey’s case.

Col. Downey had been told it would be a “conversation” with the commander, and his military attorney stayed outside the room.

Instead, Gen. Milley turned the meeting into a five-hour hearing, and Col. Downey was peppered with questions without the benefit of an attorney.

“During the hearing, General Milley became angry that his investigation was being questioned and informed Downey he was keeping track of the number of times Downey criticized his investigation,” the More Law Center said.

After his punishment, an Army board was impaneled in 2013 in Washington to determine whether Col. Downey should be retained. The board voted unanimously to retain him, saying his punishment was not supported by the evidence, the More Law Center said.

[Ryan Ruck]

Gay Air Force Lieutenant Faces Sexual Assault Charges

December 10, 2014

Gay Air Force Lt. Joshua Seefried, a prominent advocate for the rights of gays in the military, is tentatively scheduled to go on trial in a court-martial next month on sexual assault charges at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

In a development that until now has gone unreported in the media, Seefried was charged in April with wrongful sexual contact and forcible sodomy. In October, his commanding officer at Fort Meade in Maryland, where he’s currently stationed, added an additional charge of abusive sexual contact.

Statements made by military prosecutors at a pre-trial motions hearing at Andrews on Monday revealed that the three charges stem from an accusation by U.S. Marine Lt. Edgar Luna, who’s gay, that Seefried allegedly performed sexual acts on him in a hotel room in New York City in May 2012 at a time when Luna says he was intoxicated and unable to give consent.

Sources familiar with the case point to a report prepared by a highly regarded investigating officer knowledgeable in military law that questions the credibility of the charges. The officer, Air Force Col. Robert Preston, presided over an Article 32 hearing on the case in September. Article 32 hearings in the military are similar to civilian grand jury proceedings.

At the conclusion of the hearing Preston recommended in his report that the case against Seefried should not proceed to trial by court-martial because there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and that Seefried would most likely be acquitted.

Most of the arguments at the eight-and-a-half hour hearing on Monday centered on a controversial decision in October by Major General Darryl Burke, commander of the Air Force District of Washington, to override Preston’s recommendation and order that Seefried’s case proceed to a full court-martial, which is scheduled to begin on Jan. 26.

Seefried’s defense team was further startled when Seefried’s commanding officer at Fort Meade, Lt. Col. Michael Goodwin, followed Burke’s action by adding the additional charge of abusive sexual contact against Seefried.

At the sometimes contentious hearing on Monday, Seefried’s civilian lawyer, Richard Stevens, fired questions at Burke and Goodwin, whom he called as witnesses, asking whether their respective decisions to bring the case to a court-martial and to add the additional charge were based on fear of outside political repercussions rather than the merits of the case.

He pursued that line of questioning in support of a motion he introduced calling on the judge presiding over the hearing, Col. Ira Perkins, to dismiss the case against Seefried on grounds of unlawful command influence, an action considered a serious breach in the military justice system.

Stevens noted that two Air Force generals’ careers have ended recently over widely publicized reports that they put a stop to the prosecution of separate sexual assault cases under their command at a time when members of Congress and President Obama have criticized the military justice system’s handling of sex crimes.

He asked Burke if he feared that his own career could be in jeopardy for being viewed as being too lenient on a sexual assault case if he accepted Col. Preston’s recommendation to drop the charges against Seefried.

“I base my decisions on the evidence,” Burke said when asked by one of the prosecutors in the case whether his decision on the Seefried case was based on facts or external influences.

The lead prosecutor, Maj. Mark Rosenow, disputed Stevens’ line of questioning, saying the defense failed to provide substantiation that Burke or Goodwin were in any way influenced by political considerations in their decisions to bring the case to a court-martial and add the additional charge.

In response to questions by Stevens, Burke testified that he based his decision to bring Seefried’s case to a court-martial on recommendations by his military law advisers. Goodwin cited a similar recommendation by his advisers from his base’s Judge Advocate General’s office, which serves as the military’s legal arm.

In a separate motion, Stevens called on the judge to reopen the Article 32 hearing for Seefried, among other things, on grounds that the defense was denied the right to cross examine a key witness in the first Article 32 hearing that could have provided the defense with further evidence to challenge the allegations against Seefried by his accuser, Lt. Luna.

Col. Perkins, the presiding judge, said he would deliberate over the Article 32 motion and the motion for dismissal of the case and issue a ruling on the two motions sometime this week.

Seefried and attorney Stevens declined a request by the Washington Blade for comment, saying it would be inappropriate for them to discuss the case at a time when a military judge was deliberating over the two defense motions filed on Monday, according to D.C. gay activist Lane Hudson, a friend of Seefried’s who attended Monday’s hearing and who spoke to Stevens and Seefried during breaks in the hearing.

Friends of Seefried, including Hudson, say Seefried is hopeful that his name will be cleared by a dismissal of the charges or a subsequent acquittal if the case goes to trial in a court-martial.

Among those called by the defense to testify at the hearing on Monday were Luna and U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Commander John Fiorentine, who was also charged with sexually assaulting Luna at the hotel in New York before authorities dismissed the case against him at the recommendation of an Article 32 investigating officer.

Among the questions Stevens asked Luna was whether he had seen the Article 32 report in Seefried’s case, which Stevens said may have been leaked and circulated on a listserv or Facebook page.

Luna said he thought he may have seen an article or a discussion about the Article 32 report on a listserv but said he didn’t see the report.

Stevens told the judge that reading the Article 32 report, which discussed inconsistencies in Luna’s earlier statements accusing Seefried of sexually assaulting him, would give him an opportunity to craft his testimony at a court-martial for Seefried where he could minimize inconsistencies.

Sources familiar with the Seefried case said the sexual assault allegations swirling over his head emerged from a weekend gathering in New York City in May 2012 of seven junior gay military officers from across the country and a straight female friend who participated in Fleet Week, an annual event in which Navy and sometimes Coast Guard ships dock in a major U.S. city, including New York.

The gay officers, who were from all branches of the military, were also celebrating the repeal a few months earlier of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and the behind-the-scenes effort by several of them, including Seefried, to push for the repeal, those familiar with the gay officers said.

Seefried in 2010 founded OutServe, a group of gay and lesbian active duty service members who anonymously lobbied for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Seefried reportedly knew most of the gay officers who gathered in New York, including Luna, through OutServe.

According to sources familiar with the case, the gay officers met at a Manhattan restaurant for brunch on the afternoon of May 26, and all of them, including Luna, consumed several alcoholic beverages. After spending a good part of the afternoon at the restaurant, several of them accepted Seefried’s invitation to join him at the spa in the hotel in which he was staying, which was located about a mile from the restaurant.

All of them, including Luna, walked from the restaurant to the hotel, which took about 20 minutes, sources familiar with the case said. Upon arrival at the hotel several of the people accompanying Seefried to the spa changed into bathing suits or gym shorts and entered a communal hot tub. Several of those in the group reportedly saw Luna and Seefried “making out” in the hot tub in what they believed to be a mutually consenting display of affection.

But the Article 32 report cites a statement taken from Luna after he returned to his military base in Florida in which he said he became “extremely intoxicated” at the restaurant and could not remember anything from the time he was in the restaurant until about midnight, when he said he woke up disoriented and naked in a hotel room with Seefried and Fiorentine, the Coast Guard officer.

The Article 32 report – and discussion by the defense and prosecution at Monday’s hearing at Andrews Air Force Base – mentioned Luna telling investigators that he talked to several people he had been with that night who gave him various accounts of what he had been doing and how he got to the hotel. In at least one statement he reportedly said Seefried told him he saw Luna and Fiorentine engaging in sex in the hotel room.

Sources familiar with the case say Luna initially accused Fiorentine of sexually assaulting him in the hotel room while he was impaired by alcohol. Fiorentine was subsequently charged and brought before his own Article 32 hearing earlier this year in which the investigating officer found that there was insufficient evidence to bring his case to a court-martial, resulting in his case being dropped.

People who know Seefried say that in June 2012, about a month after the alleged sexual assault took place in New York, Luna appeared to be on friendly terms with Seefried, exchanging text messages with him and accepting an invitation by Seefried to join him and others at a White House LGBT Pride month reception, which President Obama attended.

The friends have expressed surprise that Luna shortly after the White House reception chose to implicate Seefried in the sexual assault.

People who know Luna identify him as an openly gay advocate for gays in the military and an early member of OutServe. Luna appeared in a broadcast interview by CNN and was quoted in Huffington Post in September 2011 shortly after Congress’s repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” went into effect.

Hudson said he is troubled over the decision by General Burke to “ignore” the Article 32 investigating officer’s recommendation against proceeding with a court-martial for Seefried.

“Josh Seefried is a leader in the LGBT community and played a key role in the repeal of the discriminatory law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Hudson said.

Hudson said that Seefried ironically would have benefited from a bill stalled in the U.S. Senate that calls for removing military commanders such as General Burke from the decision-making process in sexual assault cases.

The bill, the Military Justice Improvement Act introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), is aimed at preventing military commanders from blocking sexual assault charges from advancing to a court-martial when the facts in such cases warrant a court-martial, a statement released by Gillibrand says.

But Hudson and others who know about Seefried’s case have said the legislation would also prevent a military commander from unfairly advancing a case to court-martial when the evidence shows that it should not advance to a court-martial.

[American Patriot]

On Col Downey.... There are regulations against inappropriate "public displays of affection"... or used to be. It's got nothing to do with male-female or any other gender-specific people.

Idiots.

[American Patriot]

Court Bans Military From Referring to Manning as 'He'

Share on facebook? Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on more 94 comments


Chelsea Manning

Guardian (UK) | Mar 06, 2015 | by Ed Pilkington
Chelsea Manning , the U.S. Army soldier serving 35 years in prison for leaking a huge stash of state secrets, has won a small but significant victory in her bid to transition to living as a woman.
Manning challenged the military's ongoing refusal to refer to her as a woman, and won. A court order from the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals instructs the military to refer to the soldier in all future official correspondence either using the gender neutral "Private First Class Manning" or employing the feminine pronoun.
As a result, the military is henceforth forbidden from referring to Manning as a man.
The court order marks another advance toward Manning's goal of gender transition. Last month, Manning, who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, was allowed to start hormone treatment.
Manning was allowed to change her name legally from her male designation at birth -- Bradley -- in April last year. Even so, Army lawyers continue to contest her new identity. Last month, the U.S. government filed a formal objection to Manning's request to be referred to as a woman in all future filings.
In its submission to the court, government lawyers pointedly referred to the soldier as Bradley, and said that "unless directed otherwise by this honorable court, the government intends to refer to [Manning] using masculine pronouns."
Manning's legal advisers were jubilant about the outcome of the challenge. Nancy Hollander, who is leading the soldier's appeal against conviction, said it was "an important victory for Chelsea, who has been mistreated by the government for years."
Chase Strangio, a staff attorney with the ACLU who pressed a lawsuit against the Army to force it to allow her hormone treatment, said that the "court rightly recognized that dignifying Chelsea's womanhood is not the trivial matter that the government attempted to frame it as. This is an important development in Chelsea's fight for adequate medical care for her gender dysphoria."
Manning, who writes for the Guardian from her confinement in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, has written that "a doctor, a judge or a piece of paper shouldn't have the power to tell someone who he or she is. ... We should all be able to live as human beings -- and to be recognized as such by the societies we live in."

Related Topics

Pfc. Bradley Manning

[American Patriot]

HE is BRADLEY MANNING. HE served in the ARMY as a MALE. HE stole and leaked secrets as a MALE. HE was arrested, tried, prosecuted and found guilty as a MALE.

*I* will deny any orders the military puts out to call HIM a "she" because, I frankly don't give a fuck about BRADLEY Manning's personal feelings, gender or the Army's feelings on the matter.

This isn't about FEELINGs, jack asses. It's about what was and what is.

A sex change is one thing. A sex change paid for by the US government is wholly another. Those were illegitimately used TAX PAYER FUNDS.

Who the fuck wants to cut their shit off, anyway?

[Ryan Ruck]

It seems to me, it's pretty scientifically simple.

Is it XX or XY chromosomal?

Refer to as appropriate.

No matter what they feel, you cannot ignore science.

[American Patriot]

xx or xy

There you go.

DNA doesn't lie.

[Ryan Ruck]

Saw this over on ARFCOM and thought I'd share it as well as some comments from guys with tanks under their names (verified military).

All Hail Diversity – Army Eases Ban On Transgender Soldiers

March 7, 2015

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — The Army issued a directive Friday that protects transgender soldiers from being dismissed by mid-level officers by requiring the decision for discharge to be made by the service’s top civilian for personnel matters.

The Army’s new policy is the latest indication that the military’s ban on transgender troops may be eased or even lifted.

Last month, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told troops he was “very open-minded” about transgender troops, adding that nothing but a person’s ability to serve should keep them from serving. Two days later, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama endorsed Carter’s comments.

USA TODAY first reported on the policy change in the All Army Activities directive when it was in draft form. The Army declined to comment on it Friday, said Lt. Col. Alayne Conway, a spokeswoman.

In essence, the announcement places a moratorium on dismissals by requiring officers to explain their decision to discharge a transgender soldier to a high-ranking civilian leader, a move many would view as potentially damaging to their careers. The Pentagon took the same tack when it backed away from its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that banned gay and lesbian troops. It required a review of decisions to discharge gay troops by the department’s top lawyer and service secretaries, and no further dismissals occurred.

Troops with gender dysphoria, a recognized medical condition, are barred from serving in the military for medical reasons. The Army is the first of the services to chip away at that ban. Last month, the Army also approved hormone treatments for Chelsea Manning, the transgender soldier convicted of divulging a trove of classified information to WikiLeaks. There are indications other services may follow suit, with Air Force Secretary Deborah James telling USA TODAY that she favors repealing the ban as well.

In 2010, the service chiefs voiced concern about repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, telling Congress that it could affect discipline. Those worries proved unfounded as openly gay and lesbian troops have served with few issues.

The Pentagon does not count transgender troops who have been discharged. About 24 transgender troops have been dismissed, according to a report released last year by the Palm Center. It estimated that there are 15,000 transgender troops serving.

There is no specific reassessment of the ban on transgender troops, according to Lt. Cdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. However, a routine review began earlier this month of the Pentagon’s medical policy under which transgender troops are discharged, he said. The review is expected to take a year or more.

And now some of the comments...

Sometimes I regret being medically unable to reenlist. Sometimes I don't. The Army I knew is gone and something strange is taking it's place.

The Army is kicking out highspeed guys because of tats and they do this..im so glad I ETS'ed.

I've been in since 1989. I was forced into a medical evaluation board last year to start a medical retirement and released from duty. I started working a civilian job and all I could think about was a way to get back on duty. Now, I'm glad im done. The army I was knew was full of men that wanted to train hard, kick ass and after the day was done, continue to be men, those days are gone. The army is more worried about power point classes to make sure we are sensitive, more worried about effing eye pro, gloves and pt belts as if we were stacking boxes in a warehouse and the least of their worries is training and making sure we have the best to do the job of winning wars.

For the last five or six years I saw the decline in quality of new personnel we were getting. Not everyone, just a larger percentage of pure panty waste. With the talk of letting females into the infantry, trannies, being openly gay, the state of moral will/has dropped. The quality of the fighting force is dropping and there will be a terrible price to pay. The military isn't the place to conduct social experiments. That's what college is for. The one and only purpose of the military is to kill, plain and simple. Anything other than that is secondary and slowly but surely we are removing our ability to perform that primary mission.

Myself and my soldiers were lined up in our summer PT Uniforms and one by one we were led into our commanders office where they took up close and personal photos of every inch of visible skin. Our sleeves were pulled up to our shoulders and shorts up to our groins. The 1SG and CSM were looking about an inch away from the visible skin looking for signs of any tattoos that may have been covered up by concealing makeup. Very awkward!

Later that drill weekend, my CSM asked when my packet for E-8 was going to be ready, I told him I was re-considering my place in the new Army and thought it would be best if I retired before I wound up the focus of an EO/SHARP investigation. I tore up my E-8 packet and handed in my retirement request with my 20yr letter the next drill.

When my S-1 got my request, she set up a meeting with the Battalion Commander since she had to sign off on it. She asked why the sudden change of mind since I was I line to make E-8 Master Sergeant on the next board. I had all my Senior Leaders course done. I point blank told her that I did not agree with the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and allowing openly gay Soldiers to receive benefits for their spouses and rewarding an aberrant lifestyle with said benefits. I told her as a Christian, my values and morals were no longer compatible with the direction the Army was heading and it would be best if I retired from service. I could not in good conscience be a part of the military any longer.

I started my career as infantry and ended up in the medical field. Even though I have served with many knowingly gay people, for the most part they kept their personal lives to themselves. I do not care what you do while you are off duty. I don't fucking care who you share your bed with and above all, DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME! Just be present and on time, competent, follow orders, and be in the right uniform. Treat me with respect and I'll do the same.

[Ryan Ruck]

Army Ordered to Pay Damages for Discrimination; Trans Man Kept from Women’s Bathroom

April 9, 2015

The Obama administration has ordered the U.S. Army to pay damages for discriminating against a transgender worker by denying the one-time man access to the women’s bathroom after he “transitioned” to female, thus changing his “gender identity.”

Additionally, the administration has determined that the Army also discriminated against the employee by failing to use his new female name (Tamara Lusardi) and instead continuing to use the name the man was originally hired under. The case involves a military veteran who worked as a civilian software specialist at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) in Redstone, Alabama. Lusardi served in the Army from 1986 to 1993 and claims he suffered in a hostile workplace when management and co-workers kept calling him “sir” after becoming a woman and legally changing his name.

This month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, ordered the Army to pay up for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by committing sex discrimination against Lusardi. The EEOC tweaked the 1960s federal law to include transgender to the mix, asserting that it constitutes “gender identity discrimination” and therefore falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Law. The agency defines transgender as persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

In the order issued this month the EEOC writes that Lusardi was harassed because superiors used “male pronouns” after he identified as a woman and “referred to her using these male signifiers on at least seven occasions.” The Army also violated Lusardi’s rights by refusing to let him use the women’s bathroom, the EEOC asserts. The document includes testimony from an Army official explaining that Lusardi was assigned a single-user executive restroom because other female employees would feel “extremely uncomfortable having an individual, despite the fact that she is conducting herself as a female, is still basically a male, physically.”

Allowing a man to use the women’s bathroom would cause more problems than having the individual use a private restroom, the official, identified as the Deputy Program Manager of the Program Executive Office, goes on to explain. “I also thought that under the circumstances, the male restroom would be inappropriate. So, that was left to use the single use bathrooms.” Lusardi used the women’s bathroom anyways and management repeatedly asked him to use the gender-neutral executive restroom until he underwent the final surgery for the sex change because it was making other employees uncomfortable.

There is no cause to question that complainant—who was assigned the sex of male at birth but identifies as female—is female, the EEOC writes in its order. “And certainly where, as here, a transgender female has notified her employer that she has begun living and working full-time as a woman, the agency must allow her access to the women’s bathroom,” the EEOC says. “This ‘real-life experience’ often is crucial to a transgender employee’s transition.” The agency found that the Army’s actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to subject Lusardi to a hostile work environment based on sex and ordered compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.

Under Obama the EEOC has spiraled out of control to meet the administration’s mission of operating a politically correct government. In fact, nearly half of federal agency rulings dismissing employee discrimination claims have been overturned under Obama, costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in settlements. In one year alone this translated into an astounding $51.4 billion that federal agencies paid to settle discrimination claims that often had no merit, according to the government’s figures. In nearly 45% of discrimination claims thrown out by agencies across the U.S. government the EEOC stepped in and revived the cases. The number has increased steadily since Obama became president, according to the EEOC’s figures.

The agency has also taken legal action against private businesses across the nation accusing them of everything from discriminating against minorities for running criminal background and credit checks to discriminating against Muslims for not allowing hijabs on the job. Last year the EEOC even went after a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer for requiring employees to speak English at work. In that case the EEOC asserted that the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, according to this absurd reasoning, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.

[vector7]

Obama's Pentagon Chief: Excluding LGBT Troops Threatens National Security

Following ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ Defense Secretary Ash Carter celebrates military’s slow acceptance of sexual orientations.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter delivers the keynote address during the Defense Department’s LGBT Pride Month ceremony at the Pentagon, on Tuesday.

By Paul D. Shinkman June 9, 2015 | 3:21 p.m. EDT + More

It was standing room only in the Pentagon's main auditorium midday Tuesday, with staff spilling out into the corridor for a celebration of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of the Department of Defense at a time of almost unprecedented change to the military's social demographics.
Indeed, openly gay Army Brig. Gen. Randy Taylor, a decorated commander of a series of special operations units, served as moderator for the LGBT Pride Month Event. He began with remarks about how he and partner Lucas, now married, had to hide their relationship and orientation while he completed multiple tours of duty in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti and Afghanistan. Taylor is now one of the Army's top information officers.

RELATED
Transgender Military Ban Not Under Specific Review – Yet


Defense Secretary Ash Carter's keynote address emphasized the urgency of changing a bureaucracy as immense and deeply steeped in tradition as the military to adapt to current times, when young people are more tolerant, diverse and open than past generations. Anything less endangers American national security, he said.

"We need to be a meritocracy. We have to focus relentlessly on our mission, which means the things that matter most about a person is what they can contribute to national defense," Carter said. "We must ensure that everyone who is able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so. We must start from a position of inclusivity, not exclusivity."
"Anything less," he added, "is not just plain wrong, it's bad defense policy that puts our future strength at risk."
He also confirmed reports that the military's equal opportunity policies now included sexual orientation for active duty service members. They had previously extended to defense civilians.

Carter is the third Pentagon chief to oversee the repeal of the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that previously banned openly gay servicemembers. Then-Secretary Leon Panetta held the first LGBT pride month event at the Pentagon in June 2012, and rolled back some of the restrictions on service members in 2013.
Service branches' restrictions against transgender members of the military continued, however, though a BuzzFeed report this week indicates that policy may be fading, too. It documents Army doctor Maj. Jamie Lee Henry's transition to becoming a woman, both on a personal front and through her official military paperwork. The changes to her service record were a technicality, however, not indicative of a change in Army policy. The Army has not formally changed its rules prohibiting transgender soldiers, though Carter may be considering encouraging such a change.

RELATED
State Department Recognizes First Special Envoy for LGBT Rights


Henry was in attendance on Tuesday, among other active and retired members of the military who are able to live openly under the military's shifting policies.
Most recently, Defense News reports Carter's chief of staff, Eric Fanning, is a likely contender to succeed John McHugh in his position as Army secretary following his announcement to retire, becoming the first openly gay person to serve officially at that level. Fanning previously served as acting secretary of the Air Force in 2013 – during which time he described continued harassment from military circles despite his elevated position – as well as the Navy's deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer from 2009-2013.
In his remarks, Carter cited past service members forced to hide their sexual identities, such as Army Cpl. Lloyd Thomas Darling who died in Vietnam protecting his unit, Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva who became the first casualty of the Iraq War, and National Guardsman Tracy Johnson whose partner Donna Johnson, also a member of the military, was killed by a suicide bomber in Khost, Afghanistan in 2012. Under the new policies, Johnson was able to receive the same benefits as other Army widows, which now include side-by-side burials at military facilities like Arlington National Cemetery.
"If we're going to attract the best and brightest among them to contribute to our mission of national defense, we have to, ourselves, be more open and diverse and tolerant," Carter said. "In the end, the earth makes no distinction in its embrace of our honored patriots. And neither should we."

Ads by ZINC

[American Patriot]

Ruling a Step Forward for Gay Service Members, But Questions Remain



Army Lt. Col. Josh Hawley-Molloy, left, poses with his husband, Johnathon, and daughter Kylie. Courtesy of Sarah Clapp

Stars and Stripes | Jul 01, 2015 | by Steven Beardsley



NAPLES, Italy -- When Army Lt. Col. Josh Hawley-Molloy arrived for duty in San Antonio with his husband, Johnathon, and their 2-year-old daughter, Kylie, he wondered how his family would fare in a state that didn't recognize their marriage.


"One of our big fears was that we would not be able to make decisions for each other, that our parental rights would not be recognized," Hawley-Molloy said.


His fears were calmed in part on Friday after a landmark Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriages across the United States. Service members in states that refused the benefits of marriage to same-sex spouses now say they're breathing easier -- even as some states drag their feet on implementation and look to keep other discriminatory laws in place.


Guaranteed recognition by hospitals, the right to inherit from their spouse and access to Veterans Affairs benefits were among the biggest gains for same-sex military families stationed in states such as Texas, Georgia and Kentucky.


The 13 states that prohibited same-sex marriage before Friday's ruling are home to more than a quarter of the total active-duty military population, according 2013 military statistics. That figure doesn't include reservists and veterans.


Friday's ruling had little bearing on the Defense Department itself, which recognized same-sex marriages and extended benefits to same-sex spouses in 2013, after the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That decision opened up benefits, including health care, ID cards and access to base privileges like the commissary and the ability to join a partner stationed overseas.


But for gay service members stationed in the South and Midwest, recognition often ended at the base gates. Some hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, were not required to recognize same-sex marriages, forcing couples to draw up medical powers-of-attorney to ensure they could make decisions for one another during an emergency.


Army Spc. LaReina Gomez-Lorraine said an unexpected visit to an emergency room outside the base was one her biggest concerns after she received orders to the 14th Combat Support Hospital at Fort Benning, Ga.


"There's that fear of, say you get in a car accident or, God forbid, something were to happen, I wouldn't be able to sit at her bedside or she at mine," she said.


Other families felt the consequences of the Department of Veterans Affairs' policy of linking its benefits to state law, including home loan guarantees, burial rights and death pensions. On Monday the agency confirmed it would open up those benefits to all servicemembers, regardless of state.


Tyler Haugseth, a former Air Force officer and husband of an active-duty officer in San Antonio, said clarity from the VA would've been helpful months ago when the couple was visiting lenders for a home loan.


"In all cases, the office had to go up to their management and say, 'What do we do with this couple? They're not recognized in the state,' " he recalled.


Ashley Broadway, president of the advocacy group American Military Partner Association, said the ruling changes the need for such preparation.


"With the Supreme Court decision, now no matter what state a servicemember moves to, their marriage will be recognized," she said, "which in itself gives a peace of mind. There are federal protections in place wherever they go and wherever they travel."
Yet concerns remain for same-sex military families.


Some states lack protections for gay employees in the private sector, a problem for same-sex spouses of service members. So-called religious freedom laws, which allow businesses to cite religious beliefs to refuse services to same-sex couples, have become more common across the U.S.


Adoption and birth also remain sticky issues. Many states require that biological parents alone be named on a birth certificate. That's a problem for lesbian couples in particular, who are often forced to go to court to seek a "second-parent" adoption, an expensive workaround that gives normal parental rights to the non-biological parent.


The military follows state law for births in on-base hospitals, said Broadway.


Those who choose surrogacy or adoption face similar problems. While Friday's ruling is expected to open adoption to same-sex couples across the U.S., full parental rights aren't guaranteed.


Texas, for example, requires the supplementary birth certificate created for adoptions to name a man and a woman as parents.

That means that only one parent in a same-sex relationship will have full rights without a court order saying otherwise.


Hawley-Molloy said the birth certificate for their daughter, whom they adopted in Hawaii, names both of them as parents. Yet whether both have full parental rights in Texas remains unclear.


After last week's Supreme Court ruling, Lambda Legal, an organization that advocates for gay, bisexual, transgender issues, recommended nonbiological parents in same-sex marriages continue to seek adoption or court order to ensure parental rights.


Gomez-Lorraine, in Georgia, said she and her wife are considering having a child -- and mulling the legal work involved. It's another reminder that Friday's ruling was one more step in a long process, she said.


"It's a huge win, but the fight's not over," she said. "It's kind of like, 'OK, let's see what's going to happen next with this.' "

Related Topics

Gays in the Military

[American Patriot]

When I was growing up it was an accepted fact that the government didn't interefere in the lives of Americans, unless the American Citizen was doing something illegal, immoral or obscene.

By obscene, I mean, in general doing things publicly that is generally best kept behind closed doors, and out of the faces of children. In other words, sexual matter was kept off the television during prime time - to give parents a chance at raising their children without having input from perverts.

About seven years ago I "turned off the television" with limited exceptions like "Big Bang Theory" and news reports. Today in watching the television on and off I see the second paragraph coming to life. Stupid, idiotic jokes, sexual inuendo runs rampant, blood, guts, gore, vampires, aliens and zombies permeate prime time. And that's just on the NEWS!

A few days ago the US Supreme Court over stepped it's legal boundries in redefining marriage.

Today homosexuality has been shoved into our faces and sensibilities so much that we've become desenstized to the true ramifications.

In truth, marriage has always been a bonding of a male and female. Why? Procreation. Whether you're religious or not, our primitive ancestors had beliefs in things supernatural before the true understanding of procreation, before the understanding of science. Does that give the world today a reason and right to change the fact that it takes a Man and Woman to have children? No, not really.

But on the other hand American society does indeed have a large number of gay men and women. And they DO indeed have partners, whom we presume love each other. Who are we, religious or not to tell them they "can't be in love" and can't, by any legal standard be a tax paying couple?

After all, now, each state has it's own definition of how and why someone gets married and in every case nearly, the STATES demand that married couples pay taxes.

So, with that, we welcome the new couples, the new TAX Payers to help the rest of us become more "socialized". After all, there are those of us who have fought and fought this Socialist nonsense, the invasive Government taxes. But now, we add many married couples, who by the way do not get any "breaks" for being married (in fact, quite the opposite) so that those of us who do not wish to cooperate with the Socialist Agenda can quit our jobs and live off the grid, off the dole, or off the radar of government and still "collect benefits" if we wish to do so.

So, thank you to the US Supreme Court for your culpability in the one of the last nails in the coffin of the United States of America.