The Real Danger of the IRS, DOJ 'Scandals'

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

The IRS and DOJ scandals are already old news, but everyone seems to misunderstand their significance.

The machinations of the IRS went something like this: Sometime last year, several middle to low level workers at the Cleveland, Ohio office of the Internal Revenue Service started taking special interest in conservative political groups applying for tax exempt status. They looked for organizations with the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or "the Constitution" and, as the New York Times reported, sent them--and, it appears, them alone--detailed questionnaires to probe their political leanings, affiliations, and plans. 

At the same time, the DOJ was investigating national security leaks to reporters. As part of that investigation, it sent a subpoena (or subpoenas) to phone companies to seize the records of at least 20 phone lines used by the Associated Press and several others at FOX News. The AP called the actions "overzealous" and "unconstitutional;" others went further, calling the DOJ's behavior part of a "pattern of cover-ups."

Republicans and conservatives are positively giddy at the apparent opportunity to tie the President to these "scandals," hoping to claim some skin in the game, or at least a political victory. But there is no evidence that the President knew. In fact, there is every evidence that these decisions were made at lower administrative levels and were kept out of the President's world.

That means that these "scandals" -- not to mention the Benghazi tragedy -- don't have legs in the traditional sense, like Watergate or even the Monica Lewinsky affair. They are not about what the President knew and when. They don't involve the President, or anyone close to him, lying. Nor are they about some sinister Administration plot to target enemies.

But they may damage the Administration, the Democratic Party, and modern progressivism in a more subtle way.

To see how, continue AFTER THE JUMP...

The Military's Sexual Assault Problem Affects Men and Women, Gay and Straight

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

The United States military has a rape problem, and it's nothing new.

Earlier this week, two women -- Rebekah Havrilla and BriGette McCoy -- appeared before a Senate subcommittee chaired by New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to recount their experiences of being raped and sexually harassed during their time in the military. They were joined by one man, Brian Lewis, who testified that he was raped by a senior officer in the Air Force while serving on the island of Guam. It was the first time a male victim appeared before Congress to discuss his sexual assault.

Their heartbreaking stories of abuse and command inaction are bad enough on their own; in the context of a military in which rape, sexual assault, and harassment are more common than morning coffee, they are downright enraging. According to the military's own report, the number of service members anonymously reporting a sexual assault jumped more than 30% in the past two years. In 2012, more than 26,000 troops reported experiencing "unwanted sexual contact," a significant jump from the 19,300 who reported such victimization in 2010. What's more, 10,700 of the 19,300 victims in 2010 were men. And that covers only those incidents reported to authorities; men are far less likely to report being victims of sexual assault, especially in a macho, testosterone-filled environment like the military. The real numbers are probably shockingly high.

P erhaps as high -- if not higher -- as they were in 1991, when 83 women and 7 men were assaulted during the Tailhook convention in Las Vegas in September 1991. Even that scandal, which was supposed to change the military forever, did not result in a single prosecution. The bankruptcy of the military justice system came back into the news recently when an Air Force general tossed out the conviction of an officer after the officer had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a woman. 

This unique and dangerous facet of the military criminal justice system -- the near boundless discretion given to the so-called "convening authority" to sign off on, reject, or modify the sentence of a general court-martial -- is complicit in the growing epidemic of sexual crimes in the military today. But it is not alone. 

Let's discuss the elements of military law that are contributing to this problem,
AFTER THE JUMP...

President Obama Congratulates Lambda Legal: VIDEO

Yesterday, Ari noted that Mayor Bloomberg had declared yesterday 'Lambda Legal Day' in NYC. President Obama also had some kind words for the country's oldest and arguably most important LGBT legal services organization, and related them in a special video. Lambda Legal is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Today Is Lambda Legal Day in New York City

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Lambda Legal, the country's oldest and arguably most important legal services organization dedicated to protecting the rights of the LGBT community, is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. It began as a small operation, evoking a David-versus-Goliath motif. It's first client was itself. Its second major victory changed the way we think about free speech. Its most famous case brought gay people out from the shadows. And through countless legal, educational, and political efforts over forty years, Lambda has done more for the gay community than any one person could adequately appreciate or explain. 

Because of Lambda's incomparable accomplishments, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has declared today, May 6, 2013, "Lambda Legal Day." I'd like to make sure we all understand why.

Without Lambda Legal, we wouldn't be where we are today: celebrating the freedom to marry in New England, permitted to express and embrace our sexuality in schools and elsewhere, arguing marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the Supreme Court, and expecting victories in state legislatures across the country, to name just a few our remarkable successes. We used to be hidden in underground bars with darkened windows, subject to random and pernicious police raids, and forced deep into the closet and far toward the margins of legitimate society. Today, for the most part, we aren't.

To some of us, names like Bill Thom, James Dale, John Lawrence, Ninia Baehr, and Karen Golinski evoke feelings of heroism and shared sacrifice. They all were plaintiffs in important gay rights cases in the last forty years and they were all represented by Lambda Legal.

AFTER THE JUMP, I offer a taste of some of Lambda's most notable accomplishments. If you're interested in learning more, I encourage you to check out the organization's website, contact their staff, and see how you can help.

Jason Collins and the Legal Power of Identity

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Yesterday, Jason Collins walked out of the closet, beaming and proud. All smiles in his cover photo on Sports Illustrated and alternating between jocular and serious during his interview with George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, Jason oozed the relaxed happiness that many of us who have come out feel right after we speak those first three words: "I am gay."

That Jason is a gay, black NBA star is important to a lot of people: to young gay athletes, to gay black men, to the entire gay community. Martina Navratilova was correct when she said that Jason's coming out "will save lives." Andrew Sullivan was correct when he said that Jason has "single-handedly increased the level of oxygen gay athletes can breathe." Frank Bruni took a more nuanced, longer view, noting that Jason is rightfully getting so much attention because the discriminatory world in which we live makes being gay a big deal, even though most of us would much rather not have to lead with our personal lives.

The truth is that identity plays a necessary, multi-faceted role in the sometimes difficult march toward full equality. There's a social paradigm called the "contact theory" that suggests that the best way to reduce prejudice between two groups is to increase interpersonal connection. In other words, professional sport needs openly gay athletes because once heterosexual athletes know and respect an openly gay teammate, homophobia will disappear. Similarly, middle America needs everyday gays and lesbians to come out so they can put a real face to what they used to consider an "other" or different or confusing.

But identity plays a greater role than just influencing others, as important as that might be.

As gay persons, we have a political and legal identity thrust upon us by a world in which our identity is the basis for discrimination. Denial of the centrality of that identity perpetuates the legitimacy of the discrimination by belittling its devastating impact.

Jason could have continued on his way, hiding his sexuality, and instead focusing on his intelligence (he went to Stanford), his religion, and his family. But, as he tells it, to do so was to deny the most important thing about him today. In 2030, that the New York Giants may have a gay wide receiver or that the San Francisco Giants have a gay starting pitcher should be the antithesis of newsworthy. But today, Jason's sexuality is the only thing that's news. He has given voice to a gagged minority mightily struggling to be honest while yearning to be judged purely on their contributions on the field. It took a man willing to be the gay athlete so they could just be athletes.

Continued AFTER THE JUMP.

Follow me on Twitter at @ariezrawaldman.

The Boy Scouts Made It Worse

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

The headline, "Boy Scouts Move to Allow Gay Members," read with such promise. Including gays in the Boy Scouts has been a goal of our community for decades, most notably since James Dale challenged the Scouts' discriminatory policies in the 1990s. A sharply divided Supreme Court rejected Mr. Dale's challenge, but more recently, an avalanche of factors -- demographic shifts; concerted activism from Boy Scouts themselves and their families; rapid change in the acceptance of gays and marriage equality; and, strong pro-equality support from President Obama, his Democratic allies, and even some Republicans, to name just a few -- has forced the Boy Scouts to reconsider its exclusionary policies. Last week, the Scouts did change its policy... for the worse.

"No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone," say the Scouts. This change comes after reminding us that "youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are, developing their sense of right and wrong, and understanding their duty to God to live a moral life." The youth proviso means that gay kids are ok, but gay men cannot serve in any leadership positions. So, if you stick around the Scouts for long enough and refuse to "understand [your] duty to God to live a moral life," i.e., stop being gay, you're out of the Scouts. 

Allowing gay scouts seems like a step forward. But the exclusive focus on gay youth proves that this "step forward" is anything but a good thing. In fact, it's the worst possible result and shows the Scouts' true anti-gay colors. Gay kids are being let into the Boy Scouts not because the Scouts recognize the inherent equality of all American youth, but rather to more directly implement the organization's anti-gay dogma. This begs the question: Is the new Boy Scout policy both unjust and unconstitutional? The Scouts' policy was always unconstitutional, despite what the Supreme Court has said. Let's discuss why.

Continued, AFTER THE JUMP...

Follow me at @ariezrawaldman.