George W Bush’s Anti-Gay Policy Hurts American Security

Yet again, George W Bush’s anti-gay policies are hurting the American public. This time by denying jobs to qualified people who happen to enjoy the company of people of the same gender:

US military kicks out 3 more Arabic linguists for being gay

Sure, we won’t be able to stop the next September 11 from killing perhaps tens of thousands of people because we don’t have enough linguists to translate the terrorist chatter, but at least they stopped the gay linguists.

This comes on the heals of a report that the British have allows gay members of their military for as long as George W Bush has been in office, without the military turning into the Gay 90’s.

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur – New York Times

Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit’s strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret “that their boss was a poof,” as he put it, from people he worked with so closely.

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a non issue.

John Aravosis from AMERICAblog thinks the NY Times article signals a possibility of a policy change, but I’m not that optimistic. George W. Bush came to power by bashing gays, and maintains much of his power through the same bigoted policies. If he really planned on moving that direction, he could consider placing a moratorium on firing people who are outed in the military, but that hasn’t, and is not going to happen on George W. Bush’s bigoted watch.

The country has come a long way on this issue during George W. Bush’s time in office. We have gay marriage and civil union statues in some states and the world hasn’t come to an end. Mary Cheney gave birth today and life continued as normal for everyone other than the White House who put out a photo of the happy couple with child . . . um, that is, the child without the happy lesbian couple . . . with heterosexual (or is asexual more appropriate?) Dick and Lynne Cheney posing with their grandson.

ThinkProgress breaks down how asinine George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s anti-gay policies are:

Mary Cheney’s baby is born.

Under Virginia law, Mary’s partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, “will have no legal relationship with her child. She can’t adopt as a second parent. She won’t have her name on the birth certificate.” President Bush will still not say whether or not he supports gay adoption.

The child’s grandfather has stated that his grandson, Samuel Cheney, has no legal relationship with his daughter’s partner of 15 years due to Virginia’s right to discriminate against same-sex couples.

That’s the world we live in today.

I mentioned the other day that if you’re the best at what you do but happen to be gay, don’t work for Tim Pawlenty and the state of Minnesota. Let’s extend that to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the Bush administration.

Dan Savage’s Open Letter to Mary Cheney

Savage is on point as he berates Mary Cheney for the hypocrisy of her sudden expectation of privacy for her gay family after enabling gay bashing to score political points as she worked for her father’s campaign:

The Passion of Mary Cheney

You kept your mouth clamped shut when your father needed the political support of assholes like Dobson. And now that your dad is a despised lame-duck VP, dad’s gay-bashing political allies feel free to treat you with the same contempt with which they have long treated other gay and lesbians. And now you cry foul?

Cheney’s pregnancy and future family are going to move acceptance of gay families further to the right, which is a very good thing.

A lebsian couple lives on my block.

They have a son.

They don’t have family health coverage if they work as public employees of Tim Pawlenty.

They don’t deserve family health coverage if they listen to Michele Bachman.

The child is likely the dependent of only one of the two parents, so if one parent dies, it’s possible that the other mother who’s raised him would not receive custody of the child.

Mary Cheney knows this is absolutely insane, and Gay Jim Crow laws like “Domestic Partnerships” are nothing but discriminatory concessions by people who aren’t ready to accept people for what they are.

Cheney has press access, a great story to tell, and could change America’s thinking on issues like this a LOT faster than would otherwise happen if she cared to.

Will she? So far, sadly, no.

Focus on the Family Insults Pregnant Woman

Mary Cheney’s pregnant. Congratulations, Ms. Cheney. I hope you and your long term non-legally bound partner the best of luck. I’m sure you realize that your partner will have no rights to your child, may not be able to visit you in the hospital during childbirth, may not receive custody of your child should you happen to die before your child turns 18, and probably wouldn’t receive life insurance benefits since you can’t get married due to the political positions taken by the people who elected your father.

What will life be like for the Vice President’s grandchild? Will he or she grow up in a world where his or her parents relationship is considered second class? Dick Cheney has stated that issues like gay marriage should be left up to states to decide. Will Mary Cheney and her partner continue to live in Virginia, or will they move their family (thus jobs and taxes) to a more gay-friendly state? While Cheney clearly has the resources to do so, is that the best option we have today for gay couples?
I stumbled across this snippet of illogic over at AmericaBlog:

Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the newly announced pregnancy as unwise.

“Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn’t mean it’s a good idea,” said. “Love can’t replace a mother and a father.”

It’s hard to find more ass-backwards than that. Can a mother and a father replace love? Based on Earll’s logic, Mary Cheney’s child should be taken from what would likely be a loving relationship in a stable lesbian partnership and given to a married hetrosexual couple.

Potential loophole. Should gay male couples get together with gay lesbian couples, have two legally binding male-female marriages, then go back to living their content gay lives?