Divided emotions, opinions on 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy

By John Lantigua, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 14, 2010

LAKE WORTH — In February, Isabel, a specialist with the 482nd Air Force Reserve, based in Homestead, was due to be deployed to Iraq.

Her life partner, Nicole, a civilian, was worried and not only about Isabel's safety.

"I said to myself, 'If something happens to her, will they even contact me?' " Nicole said. "My name is there to call in case of emergency, but I am not legally her family."

Isabel's deployment was eventually canceled, but she is still concerned.

"Nicole is not eligible for any of the benefits that spouses are entitled to," said Isabel, 26. "Married soldiers get more money when they are mobilized and the military also provides health, educational, housing benefits for your spouse. I am serving my country and this is very unfair."

The young woman is not really named Isabel. She uses a false name so as not to violate the current military policy regarding gay and lesbian soldiers. "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" championed by President Bill Clinton prohibits homosexual soldiers from identifying themselves as such, but also enjoins the military from asking them about their sexual orientation.

Adopted in 1993 it was seen as a middle ground between the previous policy that banned gays from the military altogether, and outright acceptance of homosexuals in the services.

Now the Obama administration wants the policy scrapped and for gays to serve openly. The ensuing debate has provoked strong opinions on both sides.

Suspicion can lead to investigation

Both active and former members of the military who are gay or lesbian, and who were interviewed for this article, all favor the eventual changing of the policy and say homosexuals should serve without hiding who they are.

Philippe Kalmanson, 40, of Lake Worth, wishes the change had come years ago, before anti-gay policies cost him his military career. He served almost four years in the Air Force and two in the Army. His release papers reflect an honorable discharge, various service ribbons and commendations, including the good conduct medal. But his last days in uniform, in 1991, weren't pleasant.

Kalmanson, a specialist with administrative duties, had recently returned from service in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War, when he was summoned to an interview by military criminal investigators at Fort Bragg, N.C..

He had no idea why.

"It turned out that a military friend of mine based in South Carolina was being investigated for drug use," said Kalmanson. "They searched his room and found letters I had written to him from Saudi."

The men had met while serving in Korea two years before. The letters indicated they had been lovers.

According to an investigator's report, Kalmanson was detained for at least five hours.

The transcript of the interrogation details every cigarette, cup of coffee and Dr Pepper. Kalmanson confessed to the affair and was drummed out of the Army.

He says he met many gay men in the military, but any social activity among them was always away from their work and their military posts.

"You don't go into the military so you can be checking out guys in the shower," Kalmanson says. "It isn't like that."

The "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy would have probably saved his career, but he believes the military should go farther, especially given the need for manpower.

"Changing the policy wouldn't make much a difference," he says. "People gossip about who is gay anyway. And right now they need the bodies."

Stephanie, 31, of West Palm Beach, is gay and served in the Navy from 2000 to 2007, including almost two years at sea. She left as a lieutenant.

She says gay sailors sometimes revealed their sexual orientation, but rarely.

"You would stand watch at night on the bridge and you had time to talk," she says. "You had to know who to trust. It could be used against you, you could be discharged and lose all your benefits."

She said straight sailors gossiped about who might be gay "but there was never any kind of hate in it. Men and women who were thought to be gay weren't reviled by their shipmates."

She thinks most in the ranks would accept a change in policy, but officers at the top are conservative and will be harder to convince.

"And Obama needs to keep the military leaders happy right now given Iraq and Afghanistan," she says. "It will take time."

Among straight members of the military family, opinions are much more divided.

'This is a civil rights issue'

Ben Lubin, son of West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel, who served as a Marine captain in Iraq and Afghanistan, is straight and favors changing the policy immediately.

"Gay and lesbian people have fought and died for this country in wars all through our history," he said. "This is a civil rights issue. Women and blacks are allowed to serve today and they weren't at one time. Some day people will look back and say how could those people have embraced that policy. It's unjust."

Lubin said he believes many in the ranks wouldn't care, although he admits for some it will be a very contentious issue.

"But it's not up to them," he said. "Policy is made by elected officials and changing the policy is the right thing to do."

But Karl, 52, of Boca Raton, an Army National Guard sergeant who has served twice in Afghanistan, believes any change would have to be accomplished gradually, and possibly not at all. Karl is an assumed name because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

"I was raised in New York, was exposed to many different lifestyles, and it doesn't matter to me," he said. "But I've heard a lot of discussion and a lot of people in the ranks are against changing the policy."

He said many soldiers come from the more conservative parts of the country and are not sympathetic to gay rights.

"In some cases they have religious beliefs that cause them to have those positions," he said. "You also have these 'A type' personalities who are very against it. I guess you'd call them homophobic. The gay person won't be treated equally. Some of these guys just won't accept it."

That was once said about blacks. They were formally integrated into the military in 1948, when the U.S. wasn't at war.

Karl worries it will be harder for gays, and especailly now in wartime.

"In combat I need everybody focused on the same battle scheme," he said. "I need everybody working as a unit and gay soldiers serving openly could affect that. I don't believe women should serve in combat for that reason. Male soldiers tend to be overly protective of female soldiers and those males don't do what they are supposed to do.

"The dynamic would be different with gay soldiers but it could be a distraction," he said. "To make it work you would have to do a lot of education first. Maybe it would work in time. Maybe. For that reason I don't think it will pass now."

Karl said he is sympathetic to an immediate change to give everyone the same benefits. He said that question could be handled administratively so that no one in the field would have to know.

"Yes, I agree that's the fair thing and there should be a way to do it now," he said.

Florida must end bigotry against gays and lesbians

by Tony Plakas
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
March 10, 2010

Florida is the only state that still bans all gay men and lesbians from adopting children, although they can serve as foster parents. Even though the ban is most likely to be overturned in the courts soon, the Lake Worth City Commission was correct last week to unanimously direct state legislators to overturn the 1977 law that prohibits children in need from being adopted by gays.

Last year, a Monroe County circuit judge declared that the 1977 law "arose out of unveiled expressions of bigotry." Anita Bryant, a woman who once served our nation orange juice, began using her prominence to sell fear, waging a successful campaign that brands her to this day as an early and vocal opponent of homosexuality. However, few are aware that the groundwork to make Florida's government unfriendly to gays and lesbians was laid more than a decade before her rise and fall.

The 1963 Florida Legislature mandated a Legislative Investigation Committee to report on "the extent of infiltration into agencies supported by state funds by practicing homosexuals, the effect thereof on said agencies and the public, and the policies of various state agencies in dealing therewith."

In January 1964, taxpayer money was used to print and distribute a dark and ugly pamphlet, "Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida," "to be of value to all citizens; for every parent and every individual concerned with the moral climate of the state." The late Palm Beach Circuit Judge Marvin Mounts gave a rare copy of the document to me before he retired so I would always remember how far we have come. But it has been more a reminder of how far we have to go and how much we need to educate.

The booklet is a veritable Nazi-like propaganda piece, complete with obscene pictures and a "glossary of homosexual terms and deviant acts" that serves as a list of epithets that unquestionably intertwine homosexuality with pedophilia. Most of the bibliography cites research stemming from the Holocaust, and the leaflet ends with recommendations to "radically reduce the number of homosexuals preying upon the youth of Florida."

And it continues to this day. In January, a bill filed in the Florida House and Senate would revise the state's financial incentive program to provide tax credits to the film industry if filmmakers avoid certain subject matters, including the depiction of "nontraditional family values."

The time has come for the Florida Legislature to address continuing policies that demonize the gay community and atone for nearly a half a century of state-sponsored bigotry. However, it doesn't look like it is going to stop anytime soon, particularly when so many wish to gain politically for their stances on homosexuality.

Tony Plakas is CEO of Compass Inc., a gay and lesbian outreach center in Lake Worth.

E-mail Tony at homerule@post.harvard.edu.

Lake Worth City Commission Opposes Gay Adoption Ban

Out In West Palm Beach

March 2, 2010

(Lake Worth, Florida) On the opening day of the Florida Legislative Session, Lake Worth City Commissioners unanimously voted to direct legislators to repeal a Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians since 1977.

The resolution, which was introduced by Lake Worth City Commissioner Cara Jennings, calls for state lawmakers to repeal Section 63.042 of Florida Statute which provides, "No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual."

Youth intervention specialist Donald Cavanaugh spoke in favor of the resolution, as did several other individuals affiliated with COMPASS -- Palm Beach County's GLBT community center.

Two bills, SB 102 and HB 3, were introduced by Senator Nan Rich (D-Sunrise) and Representative Mary Brandenburg (D-West Palm Beach) to repeal the adoption ban.

Florida is the only state with a law prohibiting gay men and lesbians - couples and individuals - from adopting children.

Three Florida courts have ruled that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children and that the ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians is unconstitutional, according to retired judge Rand Hoch, President and Founder of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.

The Council is a local nonprofit organization which is dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

"Three court decisions have now held that the ban on gay adoptions is unconstitutional," said Hoch. "Since the rulings apply only in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, the legislature must now take action to permit gay men and lesbians to adopt children throughout the state of Florida."

"If the adoption ban is not repealed by the legislature this session, ultimately this unjust law will be overturned by the Florida Supreme Court," said Hoch.

Securing Our Children's Rights (SOCR) is the leading statewide organization lobbying for the repeal of Florida's law. For more information about SOCR, go to: www.socrflorida.com.

The ACLU of Florida has also undertaken a campaign to end the adoption ban. For more information on the ACLU's campaign, go to: http://www.aclufl.org/issues/lesbian_gay_rights/gay_adoption.cfm.


© 1997-2010 Ethan Interactive, Inc.

URL: http://www.outinwestpalmbeach.com/home/news.asp?articleid=33926

FLORIDA LEGISLATORS HEAR TESTIMONY ON DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL

Out In America
January 27, 2010

(West Palm Beach, Florida) Florida legislators were urged this afternoon to enact pro-family legislation creating a statewide domestic partnership registry. Once enacted, the legislation would provide unmarried couples many of the benefits provided by the state to married couples.

Palm Beach County Human Rights Council President Rand Hoch addressed legislators at the final public hearing prior to the opening of the Florida legislature in March.

"Many couples choose not to marry so that they may preserve their social security, pension, and veterans benefits," said Rand Hoch, President of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.
"However marriage is not an option for gay and lesbian Floridians in committed relationships."

Nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive laws recognizing gay and lesbians relationships. Four states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont) and the District of Columbia provide full marriage equality. New Jersey recognized civil unions. Four additional states (California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) have domestic partnership legislation.

While marriage equality for gay men and lesbians is denied by Florida's laws and constitution, gay couples may register their domestic partnerships in some parts of Florida.

"Thanks to the efforts of local organizations such as Save-Dade, the Human Rights Council of North Central Florida, and the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, gay couples may register as domestic partners throughout Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties, as well as in the city of Gainesville," said Hoch.

"Regardless of where our families make our homes, we should be accorded the same rights and benefits that other families take for granted," Hoch told legislators.

"Once the law is enacted statewide, domestic partners will be allowed to visit their partners in a hospital with the same authority as spouses with regard to health care decisions," said Hoch. "Domestic partners will be notified as family members in the event of an accident, and in the event of a partner's death, they will be empowered to make funeral decisions."

With legislators wary of the Florida's multi-billion dollar deficit, Hoch informed legislators that the legislation requires no expenditure of state funds for office space or personnel, since the paperwork will be done by the Clerks of the Circuit Courts who are charged with processing marriage licenses.

"Since fees are assessed to register and terminate domestic partnerships, the legislation will actually generate income for the state," said Hoch.

The domestic partnership legislation was co-introduced by state senator Eleanor Sobel (D-Hallandale) and state representative Richard Steinberg (D-Miami Beach)

Sharp Words Open California Same-Sex Marriage Case

By JESSE McKINLEY
New York Times
January 11, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — In the opening volleys in the federal trial over the fate of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, lawyers for both sides were sharply questioned by the judge overseeing the trial, raising the possibility of high drama in a case that is being anxiously watched by gay-rights groups and supporters of traditional marriage nationwide.

Supporters of gay marriage rallied outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco on Monday.

Just hours before the testimony began here, the United States Supreme Court intervened in the case, temporarily staying a decision last week by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is hearing the case, to allow the proceedings to be streamed to other federal courtrooms in other states and distributed online. Supporters of the ban, Proposition 8, objected to that plan and early Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a stop to any “real-time streaming” outside the courtroom until Wednesday afternoon, giving the justices more time to consider the issue.

The trial, however, continued. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 — which was passed by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and established marriage as between only men and women — started rallying in front of the courthouse before dawn. By the time the trial began just after 9 a.m. Pacific time, Judge Walker’s courtroom was packed with lawyers, spectators and members of the news media, as was an overflow room on another floor, where the proceedings are being streamed.

Judge Walker set a questioning tone early, repeatedly interrupting an opening statement by Theodore B. Olson, a lead counsel for the plaintiffs — two gay couples who filed their suit in the spring after the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8. The judge asked Mr. Olson why domestic partnerships, which are allowed in California, were not sufficient for gay couples and wondered what kind of evidence would be introduced to show harm to same-sex couples who are not allowed to marry.

Mr. Olson, a prominent conservative litigator whose co-counsel is David Boies, his foe from the 2000 battle over the presidential election, countered that marriage “was a building block of family, neighborhoods and community” in America, and that to deny gays that right was to effectively make them second-class citizens. Proposition 8, he said, “isolated gay men and lesbian individuals and said, ‘You’re different.’ ”

During the trial, which is expected to last three weeks, Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies are expected to argue that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process and falls in line with other historical prohibitions on marriage, including some states’ ban on interracial marriages, that were overturned by the Supreme Court.

Advocates for Proposition 8, who assert that Californians were well within their rights to establish a definition of marriage, were also pointedly queried by Judge Walker.

Charles J. Cooper, the lead counsel for the defense, opened his case by arguing that limitation of marriage to men and women was a tradition “across history, across cultures and across societies” meant to “channel natural procreative activities between men and women” into stable relationships.

But Judge Walker interrupted Mr. Cooper to ask about other marital benefits like companionship and support, and he noted that there were no restrictions on marriage for heterosexual couples who could not or did not want to have children. The judge also questioned the assertion by Mr. Cooper that same-sex marriage would “radically alter” traditional marriage and could decrease marriage rates for heterosexuals.

Mr. Cooper conceded that hard statistical evidence on such issues was limited — “confident and reliable judgments cannot be made” — but argued that same-sex marriage was “too novel of an experiment” for California to try. He also said that it was not the role of any court — including the Supreme Court, where the case is expected to eventually end up — to “reflect the attitudes of the American people.”

“That’s what they have ballot booths for,” Mr. Cooper said.

The case comes as gay-rights groups have suffered several setbacks, including the defeat of same-sex marriage legislation in New York and New Jersey and a vote last fall that overturned such unions in Maine. Efforts to overturn Proposition 8 with another ballot measure in California also face uncertain prospects, with most major groups having decided to wait until at least 2012 to go back to the voters.

All of which has heightened expectations for this case. Several of the figures who helped pass Proposition 8 are expected to be called to testify under oath, as are experts for the defense.

Mr. Olson said his case planned to call experts on history, economics and psychology to show “the grievous harm” caused to gays and lesbians who are not allowed to marry, and he used often sharp-elbowed rhetoric to describe their plight, calling — for example — domestic partnerships a “badge of inferiority” that sounds like a “commercial venture.”

In one particularly passionate exchange, Judge Walker asked why the courts should intervene in Proposition 8.

Mr. Olson paused. “That is exactly why we have courts, why we have the Constitution and why we have the 14th Amendment,” he said, adding that while some groups “may not be the most popular people,” the court still should uphold their rights. “That is why we are here today.”

Meet Cynthia Nixon and help ACLU of Florida LGBT Advocacy Project Kick off the Adoption Campaign

Please join the ACLU of Florida's LGBT Advocay Project on Saturday, January 9, 2010 at The Shore Club in South Beach, for a poolside cocktail party featuring Cynthia Nixon, Sex and the City star and LGBT rights advocate. Proceeds will support the ACLU's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights work in Florida and across the country.

Florida's Adoption Ban is the only law in the country that categorically prohibits gays and lesbians from adopting. This discriminatory law hurts thousands of children who are languishing in Florida's foster care system by denying them a permanent home.

For tickets, go to: http://fl.aclu.org/site/Calendar?view=Detail&id=106962

Poolside Cocktail Party:

$25/person, 8:30-10:30 p.m.
Open Bar and hors d'ouevres
Guest DJ


VIP Reception:

$250/person, 7:30-9:00 p.m.
Open Bar and hors d'oeuvres
Sponsorships available

Attire: Miami Chic/Cocktail Party

Featured Guests:

Cynthia Nixon,
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Florida Senator Nan Rich,
Florida Representative Mary Brandenburg,
Howard Simon,
ACLU of Florida Executive Director,
Robert Rosenwald,
ACLU of Florida LGBT Advocacy Project Director

U.S. Senate to markup domestic partnership bill

A Senate committee has set Wednesday as the day it will markup legislation that would provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, DC Agenda has learned.

The Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee will consider the bill — known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act — during a business meeting starting at 10 am. Dec. 16. The markup will occur in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The panel will consider amendments to the legislation before voting on whether to report out the bill to the Senate floor.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the committee, is the sponsor of the legislation. It currently has 26 co-sponsors.

On the House side, the Oversight & Government Relations Committee reported out its version of the bill last month, 23-12. Lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) is the sponsor of the bill, which has 138 co-sponsors. A time for a floor vote has not yet been announced.