Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The AFA's news outlet reports on Peter LaBarbera's latest panty twisting. He's getting the vapors over a legislator's spouse getting a ride on a Pentagon plane:
A conservative group is calling on the Pentagon to apologize for its decision to permit a liberal lawmaker to take her homosexual partner on a taxpayer-funded trip overseas.Politico.com reports Defense Secretary Bob Gates granted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) a special exception to House rules so she could allow Lauren Azar, the same-sex partner of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe. Baldwin and Azar reportedly "confirmed their commitment to each other" in 1998, and one news service says Azar is registered with the House as Baldwin's spouse.
And The Peter's perfectly rational response:
Peter LaBarbera, president of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is condemning the Pentagon's accommodation of Baldwin. He says it is "outrageous" that the Pentagon gave in to Pelosi and the "homosexual agenda."
Yeah! Lesbians should fly coach! He's seriously suggesting that the Pentagon should apologize for (reluctantly) allowing a US Congresswoman's partner to fly on a plane with her . What the hell is he afraid of? That children will read about this and go out and be so overcome with primal lust that they'll run out and start having anal sex? The only ones that deserve an apology are Baldwin and her partner. It should never have been a question in the first place. These people get more ridiculous every day.
Comments
This is just knee jerk response to anything having to do with someone who is gay. So predictable, as well - they do it to raise their profile with the anti-gay crowd. They'd better get used to it, because Pelosi is going to be Speaker of the House for awhile and will probably go to bat for her caucus more than once. Think the Pentagon is going to stand firm against the person holding their purse strings?
Posted by: BC | April 8, 2008 10:12 AM
This is a matter of prescedent that is what makes it important. I have travelled hundreds of times both in the military and as a civilian for official government purposes. Under no circumstances have I ever witnessed anyone but legitmate spouses and dependents be authorized to travel at government expense. Now we can have a debate about gay marriage which I will take the against position but until that debate is resolved to me this was a simple case of abuse of power at the taxpayers expense. The scary thing is the prescedent this may set, how many people in the future will the taxpayer have to foot the transportation bill for now. Will partners now be defined as friends, lovers, uncles etc...where will it end, how long before the taxpayers go bankrupt. This is a simple case of Nancy Pelosi pandering to her San Francisco homosexual voters.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | April 8, 2008 10:17 AM
AFSGTSAM, your experience is irrelevant to the case being discussed, unless you were present when congresspeople were being transported with or without their same-sex partners.
So, you really don't need to get flexed about precedent or taxpayer expense "issues".
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 8, 2008 10:31 AM
AFSGTSAM: You have never witnessed anyone "but legitimate spouses and children" because you weren't paying attention. There were plenty of folks traveling along as staff or reporters who had no particular function other than keeping the Congresscritters warm at night. And as far as this busting the budget, can't they just take some more money out of Veteran's Health Care?
This is nothing but hypocrisy. Nothing to see here, folks, really.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 8, 2008 10:42 AM
AFSGTSAM said:
Based on that, I guess you would have no problem with this if they were married in a state in which gay marriage is legal.
Posted by: Jason I. | April 8, 2008 10:44 AM
If people are allowed to take their spouses, and she took hers, well than nothing wrong happened then.
Posted by: Robert | April 8, 2008 10:52 AM
AFSGTSAM wrote:
I'd be willing to bet a dollar that in the mid-19th century, people like AFSGTSAM said the same thing about mixed-race couples riding on, say, military trains. The 21st century is upon us, AFSGTSAM, and progress toward equality will continue apace whether you like it or not. Folks like you will end up being a footnote in the history books, something that your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will look upon and think "How sad that people like that were so closed-minded." I'm proud of the fact that my kids know me and Kim support equal rights for same-sex couples and for gays and lesbians, and you can bet their kids will know it too.
Posted by: Dan | April 8, 2008 10:58 AM
And while we're on the subject, can someone please explain to me exactly what is on this nefarious "homosexual agenda?" I presume it includes redecorating every living room in America in pastels and floral prints but beyond that, I'm at a loss. What else is on the agenda?
Posted by: Dan | April 8, 2008 11:02 AM
Will partners now be defined as friends, lovers, uncles etc...where will it end, how long before the taxpayers go bankrupt.
Um...you may not have noticed this, but we've already racked up a huge deficit, and back-breaking national debt, by waging this little war thingie in Iraq. So the taxpayers may not THINK they're bankrupt yet, but their country obviously is, and has been for some time, gay freebies or not.
This is a simple case of Nancy Pelosi pandering to her San Francisco homosexual voters.
This is a simple case of an idiot wailing about "homosexual voters" in order to avoid a few larger and more relevant issues.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 8, 2008 11:07 AM
AFSGTSAM: Oh do shut up. So a good ol' marriage that involves a man and a woman is fine, but two guys or girls who commit to each other the same way are just lifelong fuckbuddies? Get real. Domestic partnership laws are giving same sex couples as close to the distinction of spouse as is possible until full equality is reached, and sorry buddy, it's gonna happen eventually. It's allowable to take a spouse on these trips, she's not taking a friend, she's taking her wife. There's no reason to treat her as anything other than a wife, except that you see gay relationships as sins and/or icky, depending on how religious you are. Rail against all wives being taken for taxpayer reasons and you'll have some credibility. You don't now.
And we've had this conversation before. The homosexual agenda is all about making everyone else gay. And I'm totally for it. (this is sarcastic for those of you who just went to check to make sure that your children were properly homophobified and your spouse was still attracted to you).
Posted by: paul | April 8, 2008 11:22 AM
Wow, it didnt take long for the personal attacks to start what happened to all that liberal tolerance I read so much about. I guess the tolerance stops at the party line door. Travel at GOVERNMENT EXPENSE is limited to recognized spouses and dependents, at this time a homosexual partner is NOT a recognized dependent, in time that may change but using political influence to violate a rule is wrong period. Yes, reporters et al do travel along with the congressment at THEIR EXPENSE the govt is reimbused for their costs look it up. Again legitimizing Gay marriage is a diffrent debate but this is pandering and abuse of power nothing else.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | April 8, 2008 11:37 AM
Ahh, but the difference is that it's an abuse of power that 1) overrides a policy that is wrong on its face, 2) harms no one, 3) actually supported and helped a caring family, and 4) outrages and offends a group of people whose opinions and attitudes are dying a long-deserved death anyways.
Sooo, where's the problem?
Posted by: G Barnett | April 8, 2008 11:51 AM
AFSGTSAM,
Liberals, being tolerant of others' personal choices, have little to no tolerance of anti-tolerant bigots. In fact, it would be hypocritical to accept all opinions as equal, especially those that are oppressive.
Posted by: Don K | April 8, 2008 12:11 PM
Many private companies have benefit programs with special rules specifically covering the same-sex domestic partners of their employees. These will remain in place until the laws are changed and gay couples are allowed to marry.
As far as I know, this provision has not led to a slippery slope of requiring all kinds of non-married partners to be covered by the same benefits rules, so there is no reason why the case being discussed here should be either.
Posted by: tacitus | April 8, 2008 12:16 PM
It's not an abuse of power. Speaker Pelosi made an exception for the congresswoman and her wife. The SoD made it clear in his letter to her that this is something the speaker is allowed to do. If the speaker is allowed to do it, and there's precedent, there's no abuse of power.
It would seem that this issue is more about hatred of gays than it is about abuse of power. Surprised? I'm not.
Posted by: Kenneth New | April 8, 2008 12:18 PM
Yeah, the Pentagon didn't have the option to refuse once the Speaker and the SoD granted the exception. They don't make policy. The only one "giving in to the 'homosexual agenda'" is Pelosi, which should come as no surprise even to an idiot like Peter LaBarbera.
Posted by: bullet | April 8, 2008 12:36 PM
Ahh, but the difference is that it's an abuse of power that 1) overrides a policy that is wrong on its face, 2) harms no one
So as long as I disagree with a policy and it allegedly harms no one I can violate the rule. Well with that mentality why have laws or rule governing any behavior.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | April 8, 2008 12:41 PM
(ignoring AFSGTSAM and those that decided he was worth responding to)
Perhaps the story has changed since I last read it but to me this just seems to be a conflict of rules between the military and the democratic congress (which ironic sets the rules for the military). The military ceded the decision to Pelosi which gave an exemption in this case. This action appears to be the proper response for all short of fixing the idiotic code. Both the left and the right is blowing this all out of proportion.
Posted by: yoshi | April 8, 2008 12:41 PM
And what part of "harms no one" did you somehow fail to comprehend? That sort of implies some type of social awareness that harming others is a bad thing, and thus governs behavior. 'Course, you seem to be the sort who has the attitude that humanity needs strict, hard, inflexible rules (dictated by those you support, of course) or else society's going to fall totally apart.
Me, I don't buy into the authoritarian mindset -- though I gotta admit, it's fun as hell to mess with their heads and thumb my nose at their narrow view of how the world "should be."
Posted by: G Barnett | April 8, 2008 12:57 PM
Why is this so common (and so unsurprising)?
Anti-gay bigot: "I have evidence of a gay agenda, and governmental support of it! [Provides 'evidence.']"
Tolerant liberals: "You are a bigot, and your evidence is incorrect, and your viewpoint is intolerant and hate-filled."
Anti-gay bigot: "Here's another example of how intolerant 'so-called' liberals are!"
Yeesh!
I have to agree with Don K on this one. And, no, this isn't hypocritical. The accusation of intolerance is a false one in this case, since the "attacks" against AFSGTSAM were neither ad hominem or ad verecundiam. IF people had said something like, "AFSGTSAM was wrong because he (I'm assuming male here) is a f*cking lunatic nutjob side-show of religio-militaristic-dogmatism-gone-wild," (or something equally ad hominem), or something like, "Because Ed Brayton wrote about this in a manner opposite to AFSGTSAM, then AFSGTSAM must be wrong" (or something equally ad verecundiam) THEN I would agree that the commentary was intolerant. However, the commentary was nothing like that. The worst I saw was calling his point-of-view equivalent to those held by some people in the 19th Century.
Come on, AFSGTSAM! Skin too thin? Can't take the (rather pathetically light) 'drubbing' against your character?
Posted by: mercurianferret | April 8, 2008 1:29 PM
Oh, and quoting back to your your own statement is not a personal attack, btw.
Posted by: mercurianferret | April 8, 2008 1:31 PM
This "issue" is being blown out of proportion by homophobes looking for one more thing to keep their hysteria going and avoid mature thought. The military fly public and private officials around all the time, for all sorts of reasons; and however strictly they may want to apply their rules to ordinary people, they will inevitably show more deference to the duly-elected officials who make their rules and vote their funding. As someone else already pointed out, Congresspersons tend to bring along "assistants," and the Pentagon can either take their word for it, or waste even more of our tax money investigating every one of them to find which ones are doing important work and which are just bimbos or call-girls. I don't follow this issue closely, but I have no doubt that this is not the first time an unmarried partner has flown with a Congressperson on the taxpayers' dime. As wasteful abuses of power go, this is nothing; worse things happen in basic training every day.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 8, 2008 1:42 PM
From Politico.com
What we have here has been a failure to communicate. No problem, no publicity in the past when a Republican OK'd a flight but let's make a big hoohaw about it now that a female Democrat is in charge.
Posted by: Somerville | April 8, 2008 2:20 PM
"Legitimate" by which definition? The Discrimination of Marriage Act (DOMA), which has no enforcement mechanism and therefore left no legitimate marriages in this country at all? You see, when lawmakers pass a law that says marriage is between "a man and a woman" but fail to define those terms, it leaves significant doubt as to what constitutes a legitimate marriage. For instance, it fails to answer the question "What gender is a person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - a form of intersexed humanity - and what gender are they supposed to marry?"
Because neither DOMA nor the various state anti-gay marriage laws have any criteria for defining male and female, and create no mechanism for ensuring that couples meet those definitions before issuing licenses, are there any legitimate marriages at all?
(Can't figure out how to embed a URL, but here is the Wikipedia entry on AIS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
For that matter, why should men like Newt Gingrich, John McCain or John Kerry, who are not legitimately married according to the religious definition all the fundies love (they are all divorced and remarried which is not allowed in the bible) have the right to force "moral" taxpayers to subsidize their adulterous lovers' travel on official business?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 8, 2008 3:07 PM
I dunno. I think someone is paying him for every time he uses the phrase "homosexual agenda."
Posted by: Bachalon | April 8, 2008 3:35 PM
AFSGTSAM wrote:
SAM, do you have any idea how the U.S. government works? Nancy Pelosi was elected by the voters of San Francisco to represent their interests. When she represents their interests, she's being a good representative.But, no, to you it's just "pandering," because you don't like those interests. What the fuck do you expect Pelosi to do? Tell her consitutents to go fuck themselves, she's not going to represent the interests of homosexuals, even though they're an important portion of her constituency?
This is a representative democracy after all, you asshead. She'd be a horrible member of Congress if she didn't represent her constituent interests.
Are you really too dumb to understand that? Because if so, it reinforces my general perception that people who oppose equal rights for homosexual are dumber than average.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2008 3:39 PM
1. What the fuck is a legitimate dependent? Has the government ever checked birth certificates of dependents to make sure their parents were married to each other when they were born? And have they ever required proof that the person of the opposite sex travelling with a Member of Congress was legally married to the MOC? This incident just reeks of homophobia and nothing more. Just who was the idiot who decided that Tammy Baldwin's wife couldn't travel with her at taxpayer's expense? (Gay people pay taxes, too.) I heard that Ms Azar was also not allowed in a group photo of the lawmakers and their spouses. I suspect the insidious right wing agenda's influence on the military is involved in this incident.
2. The gay agenda is a constantly-changing unwritten document. Pastels and flowers are so 1979. Centuries from now scientists will be able to date newly-discovered ruins of dwellings belonging to gay people just by checking the color of paint on the walls. Homophobes don't like change. That is the real basis of their hatred of the gay agenda. By and large homophobes love the 1950s and their interior decorating schemes reflect this, though not in a good retro way.
Posted by: wrpd | April 8, 2008 5:35 PM
No such thing, dude, no such thing.
Posted by: Brandon | April 8, 2008 7:30 PM
"Wow, it didn't take long for the personal attacks to start..."
Says the person who said that Pelosi was "pandering to her homosexual voters." No personal attack there.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 8, 2008 8:58 PM
AFSGTSAM, The question here is: Did Lauren Azar's presence on the flight cause another person to be bumped off the flight? If not, then the taxpayers are not out a single cent, since the plane was making that flight anyway, another full seat costs nothing (other than perhaps a meal or two, depending on the length of the flight).
Additionally, if Ms Azar was aboard as a 'special assistant' to Congresswoman Baldwin, rather than as her spouse, there would have been no uproar, no matter what her sexual preference/relation to the Congresswoman.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | April 8, 2008 10:02 PM
Probably not? However, whether or not parents were married to each other when they were born was important for purposes of inheritance. A parent could not leave property to an "illegitimate" child. I believe.
Posted by: Skemono | April 8, 2008 10:49 PM
1) The speaker is allowed to make exemptions to the rule.
2) The speaker made exemptions to the rule.
Given that these two statements are fact, it is nonsensical to call what she did an 'abuse of power'. It was in fact a legitimate use of her power as speaker.
That said, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if this country really believed in equality for all citizens. My marriage of 22 years hasn't been negatively impacted by gays getting married. The neanderthals pushing the so-called 'defense of marriage' agenda have had their day. In the not too distant future we'll all look back on this issue and laugh at the foolishness of the bigots.
I've raised my children to respect all Americans, not just those who look and act like them. I've even managed, through years of careful argumentation, to convince more than half of my relatives from rural Ohio to this point of view.
I'll say it again. Since there is no conceivable way in which the legitimate use of the speaker's power, a use that was employed by the previous speaker as well, can be construed as abuse of power, making the argument that it is an abuse says alot about the one making the argument.
Misconstruing the facts in support of a homophobic agenda makes you a bigot. If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop being a bigot.
Posted by: Kenneth New | April 9, 2008 1:37 AM
Hey, Sarge...
You don't think that the Navy supports the "gay agenda" because they have a thing called a Captain's Mast, do ya?
Posted by: BobbyEarle | April 9, 2008 12:43 PM
Now now, there's no call to malign Neanderthals like that.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 9, 2008 1:33 PM