This is the problem created by pols who churn out a “leave marriage to the states” position as a fig leaf to hide behind; real life sometimes places this problem — and the existence of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — in stark relief.
Until same-sex unions (marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or the other patchwork of state arrangements around the country) are recognized, lesbian and gay relationships are meaningless in the eyes of the federal government. The average gay couple doesn’t have Nancy Pelosi to intervene when we are discriminated against. (The Politico):
Prior to the Easter recess, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to intervene with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in order to get Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s domestic partner on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe.What’s interesting is that Denny Hastert apparently approved Azar’s travel as a spouse before, something now disputed. Read below the fold.The speaker succeeded, but the issue continues to simmer for both sides. The Pentagon appears to be self-conscious about transporting gay domestic partners at a time when it continues to enforce a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in its own ranks. The speaker is sensitive to the gay rights issue but doesn’t want to be drawn into a situation where it appears she is dictating policy for the use of military planes.
Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights if there is room for them and when it is “necessary for protocol purposes.” Although Baldwin, the only openly gay woman elected to Congress, exchanged wedding vows with Lauren Azar in 1998, her home state of Wisconsin does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, and military officials were apparently unwilling to consider Azar a “spouse” within the meaning of the House guidelines.
There were Republicans supportive of Baldwin’s partner traveling, it wasn’t a partisan matter (when it was under the table).
In appealing to Gates, Pelosi aides said their boss was simply asking the defense secretary to follow a precedent established by her predecessor, former Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Pelosi told Gates that Hastert had allowed Baldwin to take Azar on a previous trip abroad.Note that the Pentagon has now publicly thrown down the gauntlet on this, folks. Look at the response by Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell about the Pentagon’s ability to refuse Azar to travel with Baldwin in the future at its whim:…Baldwin and Azar travel together frequently, according to records filed with the House clerk. Baldwin registered Azar as her spouse on each of those disclosure forms, and last December, the House ethics panel officially cleared Azar to travel with Baldwin to a health care conference in Philadelphia. Ethics committee Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, the committee’s ranking Republican, both signed off on that waiver to the chamber’s gift rules.
…Many other members got involved in the debate over Azar’s attendance on the trip, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, and the arguments did not break down along partisan lines.
The issue of spouse travel in same-sex couples came up when Republicans controlled the House, too, according to a member and former aides. One former aide disputed Pelosi’s argument that Hastert had ever authorized Baldwin to take Azar on a trip. The aide said Hastert did not learn that Azar was on the trip until it had already begun.
“If someone is recollecting that he authorized anything, my recollection would be the opposite,” the former aide said.
Morrell said that Pelosi asked Gates to honor her decision to waive House rules to allow Azar to travel and that Gates asked her to put that request in writing.And what will the review standard be? Azar’s relationship to Baldwin will have the same legal status the next time around. What about any other civilians traveling on Pentagon business? After all, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell only applies to military personnel, not civilians.“She did so, and he — in this one case only — agreed to it,” Morrell said. “This is not a precedent by any means. This does not open the doors for life partners to travel on congressional delegations.” But Gates has agreed to review future requests on a case-by-case basis, Morrell said.
16 Responses to “Pentagon nixed Tammy Baldwin’s partner on flight, Pelosi intervened”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
To bad she’s not the mistress of a male member of Congress. She would probably not have a problem getting on board for the trip.
I’d say that they should fly commercial but there be terrorists on the loose and we also know that politicians don’t like to get themselves dirty by hobnobbing with the commoners…
But still. Is the Pentagon going to be America’s answer to the Islamic religious police? When do they start rounding up all teh gays?
Who knew that ‘the church lady’ was way before her(his) time…
This is why I continuje to maintain a solid “oh just fuck the hell off” policy with Nancy “Impeachment is Off the Table” Pelosi and her look the other way See No Evil All Wimp Revue.
She didn’t want to be drawn in either to ask why and how self-advertised, self-described $200/hr hustler Jeff Gannon was on a first name basis with el Presidente and Karl Rove, and how the practicing sex worker — ferFamValakes == got wa(i)ved into the WH by the NSA, secret service and other intel agencies.
Is it just actual love that’s the problem? The time card? Length and breadth of contract? The small appliances and Target registry? What?
This is such bullshit. The military should have very little say in who’s included in a congressional delegation, provided the people in the delegation aren’t, say, carrying weapons and threatening miitary personnel. Now, if Baldwin and Azar wished to enlist in the armed forces, they’d be subject to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But they aren’t at a recruiting office.
Does the U.S. military apply its “DATA” rule to other civilians? Do soldiers refuse to do battle with gay soldiers on the other side? Do they try to ascertain the sexual orientation of Iraqi civililans who aid their mission? Do they refuse to protect diplomatic staff members who are gay? I’m guessing the answer to all those questions is “no.”
If the military thinks it’s awkward to transport Azar on its planes, shouldn’t they be equally uncomfortable transporting Baldwin? I mean, even without her spouse present, she still has a big case of Teh Gay. The military officially doesn’t like single gay folks any better than it likes married gay folks, so what gives? They’re inventing new issues to be vexed by.
If I may permitted to be grumpy, why are we paying for any congress critters’ anyone to go on these trips? It certainly doesn’t do me any good if my (useless, Republican embarrassment of a) congressman gets to take his wife along on some trip. I also very severely doubt any significant percentage of congressial travel is useful or worthwhile. Reduce it 90 percent and I predict no ill effects.
But until we get to that happy place, sauce for the goose and fuck the nannying Pentagon.
the military did exactly the right thing in this instance. no, it didn’t make much sense to do so, but the military doesn’t exist to make sense, it exists to follow orders to the letter. laws and congressional guidelines count as orders in the absence of anything specifically labelled “orders”, i should think.
their orders say, members of congress may bring their spouses, yada yada. their orders also say, don’t ask don’t tell, and they certainly aren’t allowed to claim same-sex relationships as being spousal ones for themselves. lacking further orders, the extension is perfectly logical; congresspeople’s same-sex partners shouldn’t count as “spouses” for military traviling purposes.
unless, of course, the speaker of the house — who certainly should count as having the authority to override in these matters — says otherwise, of course. as she did, in this case, and her overriding order was correctly followed.
the fault, if any, is in DADT being law and orders in the first place. oh, and also:
the speaker of the house is one of those political players who’re supposed to be (helping to) dictate policy to the pentagon, goddammit! that’s what civilian control of the military is supposed to mean! somebody tell Pelosi to grow a spine and start doing her duty, please.
Hm I feel kind of ignorant now. . . I had no idea of Baldwin’s sexual orientation when I voted for her last election. In a way, that’s kind of awesome, that it could (at least locally) be enough of a non-issue that I wasn’t even aware of it. Too bad the Pentagon isn’t on that level yet.
… their orders also say, don’t ask don’t tell, and they certainly aren’t allowed to claim same-sex relationships as being spousal ones for themselves. lacking further orders, the extension is perfectly logical; congresspeople’s same-sex partners shouldn’t count as “spouses” for military traviling purposes.
Their orders also say they can not appear in public out of uniform, so do congrespeople have to wear a uniform when using military transportation?
Your point is well taken, but the logic in that bit is quite flawed. There are lots of orders military people have to follow that congressional passengers do not have to follow. I mean, if DADT applied to passengers then Rep. Baldwin shouldn’t be allowed to fly either since she has “told” right?
You mean when they couldn’t use it as a bat against San Francisco Nancy Pelosi, who’s from San Francisco, where a lot of gay people live.
It’s Republican business as usual — give a free pass to something until it becomes convenient for you to denounce it. Of course, it requires you to deny that you ever gave it a free pass, but it’s not like our journalists will actually look into it or pursue it if you deny that you said what they have you on tape saying. Remember how quickly the 2004 post-debate controversy went from “Bush said on tape that he doesn’t care where bin Laden is” to “Kerry said Mary Cheney is GAY!!!!”
You’d think that, you know, national security would be more important than the sexuality of the vice president’s daughter, but not to our press corps.
good points, Sarcastro. the point i meant to make was that (1) they can’t deny Baldwin passage, since she’s a congressmember and so covered under that rule, whether she’s gay or out of uniform; and (2) they can’t deny her “spouse” passage, since spouses are also covered; but (3) they can legitimately quibble about who counts as a “spouse”, and DADT gives them a basis for claiming same-sex partners don’t count. sufficient basis, in my opinion, but only because DADT — which in and of itself is despicable — is in force.
the solution is obviously to repeal DADT. unfortunately, it’s starting to look like quite a few people will have to get fired and/or shot first. i’m not optimistic enough to start holding my breath for it, sadly.
So if Baldwin were a resident of Massachusetts would that have changed anything, or is DOMA the primary applicable federal statute here?
I’m SURE this was a “fact-finding” mission to Europe. Undoubtedly Baldwin and Azar will find…
1) Brussels is lovely in Spring.
2) The Louvre really IS big!
3) European heads of state wear Armani all day.
What a waste of my tax dollars. Protocol is just a chasm of taxpayer funded nepotism - an excuse for partying with your spouse and getting a free trip out of it. Heads of state and elected officials do not need dates, however much I would like to ensure that there is no difference in treatment of inappropriate gay partners from inappropriate straight partners.
But domestic partnerships offered just the exact same rights as marriage!
Ummmm…not so much.
Deep6, you should, perhaps, read the article before you spout off about how these frivolous women are wasting your tax dollars admiring the fashions of heads of state.
Even if Azar didn’t have a background relevant to the trip, she should be allowed to join her spouse. Given the travel commitments congressional service demands, it’s reasonable and humane to allow members of Congress to bring spouses or adult children with them on business trips–they see them rarely enough as it is.
But here, deep6, you assume against all evidence that this is a vacation where the two Wisconsonites will stare at the Lourve like slack-jawed yokels or distract themselves with the weather and clothing. Why would you think something like that?
I’ve no doubt that they will do some vacation-like things. I hope they do, in fact. But the suggestion that they are doing only vacation-like things seems to have more to do with the fact that they are women than with any grounding in the facts.
“somebody tell Pelosi to grow a spine and start doing her duty, please.
You can type: YOU tell her.
As someone who grew up near domestic and foreign government officials, I would like to point out that a fair amount of the work in foreign relations is done at nominally social occasions — dinners, receptions, cocktail parties, lunches, blah blah blah. If you bring a spouse to an event where spouses are not invited, or if you fail to bring a spouse to an event where they are invited, you are offering a serious insult to your hosts. Not withdrawal-of-ambassadors serious, but do-they-pick-up-the-phone-when-you-call serious.
That’s why the “necessary for protocol purposes” line is in there. And since Baldwin’s marriage, even if not recognized by her home state, is legally recognized by a long list of the countries the US does business with, DoD should get the heck out of trying to make US foreign policy in ways it is barred by law from doing.
Thom,
Full stop. Learn to recognize sarcasm.
Apparently Russ Feingold, also from Wisconsin, is unable to attend social gatherings without a companion and is therefore prevented from engaging anyone in relevant political dialogue….?
I don’t care if Baldwin’s wife is on the board of my OWN state’s regulatory agency… this isn’t appropriate to be billed to the federal coffers. Private industry experience with a particular matter, even if the person’s position fits my own political tastes, when the person represents STATE interests is NOT to be billed to the federal government. She wants to go? Great. Let the taxpayers of Wisconsin send her, or better yet, she can travel privately. As for the hypothetical adult children? Please. I’ll remind my employer my hypothetical children also need to travel with me because we only hang out outside of the 9-6 routine.
This whole scenario smacks of nepotism and is the kind of shell game I expect freely from old school, back room Dems… not newly elected representatives. There’s nothing Azar needs to see that she couldn’t get over email, and nothing Baldwin needs to talk to her about IN Europe. This is about an American politician wanting a spouse to accompany her to a place she’s unlikely to get to see within the schedule of her partner. I certainly understand WHY she would want to go, but don’t agree that she SHOULD go… on the federal taxpayer’s dime. I’m all for the state of Wisconsin picking up the tab here, if there is anything to benefit.
The most ridiculous thing is that I used to live in Europe. They’re about a decade ahead of us in green technology and lifestyle. I would imagine even their most outdated documents are more timely and forward-thinking than most of what even private industry considers “modern” here in the US. This shit is ALREADY on paper. Azar’s getting a trip out of it. Don’t turn my disagreement with Protocol’s wasteful spending into an anti-woman creed, you idiot. This isn’t about a sex or a sexual orientation. This is about getting a freebie.
Please, prove me wrong. I’d love to know she’s only there for the national interest. Any idea what Azar’s schedule is, or if she’s turning in significant documentation to a federal regulatory agency once she comes back from this trip?
Good advice. When you said, “I’m SURE this is a ‘fact finding’ mission” you were being sarcastic, because, though you said you were sure it was fact finding, you meant to convey the sentiment that you were sure it was not fact finding.
Yet, when you said:
You were NOT being sarcastic, but rather, satirical. While you didn’t believe that they would actually find these things, you didn’t intend to convey that they wouldn’t find these things so much as that these were humorous exaggerations of the type of things they were likely to find. That’s not sarcasm, or irony, but satire.
Your sarcasm is merely uninformed, first with respect to why spouses are allowed to attend (see: family time in my previous post), second with respect to Anzar’s interests, and third with respect to what the trip was about in the first place. If you want to dispute those, so be it. I don’t regard them as especially important given that…
Your satire relies on sexist portrayals of women as frivolous and unintellectual.
That’s a problem.