Raul Alvillar (photo courtesy of the White House)

The White House has designated a gay administration official as the interim point of contact for the LGBT community until a permanent liaison is named, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said Raul Alvillar, who currently serves as associate director for public engagement at the Office of the Vice President, will serve as a temporary replacement for Brian Bond, the current LGBT liaison. Bond, who’s leaving later this month for a position at the Democratic National Committee, is deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and handled LGBT outreach as part of his portfolio.

“Following Brian’s departure from the White House to his new position at the DNC, we will have a full-time liaison to the LGBT community in the Office of Public Engagement in October,” Inouye said. “In the interim, Raul Alvillar from the Office of the Vice President will serve as the point of contact for the LGBT community for OPE.”

Alvillar, 33, served for two-and-a-half years as the congressional relations officer for the Department of Housing & Urban Development. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Alvillar was western political director for Obama and assisted with LGBT outreach and LGBT super delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

David Smith, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of programs, said in a statement HRC has heard “good things” about Alvillar.

“He has been with President Obama since the earliest days of the campaign,” Smith said. “Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council, and Jon Carson, director of the Office of Public Engagement continue to shepherd our issues in the White House so we don’t anticipate these changes to cause any problems.”

Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, said she’s “thrilled” the White House has selected Alvillar as the interim LGBT liaison because of his work on LGBT politics and issues.

“He’s certainly got the ear of senior leadership in the White House, and it’s a good step,” Stachelberg said. “He’s got a sense of the policy from having worked in the legislative office. He’s worked in state politics, which I think is terribly important. He’s worked on the campaign. So, he’s someone who’s absolutely worked in a range of different positions, which I think will help him, and, ultimately, help the community to navigate these times and continue the progress that we’ve made on LGBT issues in the past two-and-a-half years.”

It’s unclear from the statement given by the White House whether Alvillar, or his permanent successor, will have the same role as Bond or if the position will be modified. Some LGBT advocates have been calling for the appointment of a more senior LGBT adviser who could more directly and consistently counsel Obama on LGBT issues.

Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, said the opportunity for the White House to create a more senior LGBT adviser still exists in the time period before a permanent replacement for Bond is named.

“What I think the community wants and deserves is a senior, full-time White House official at the special assistant or higher level whose sole responsibility is to represent the interests of the LGBT community at the White House and in the federal government,” Socarides said. “We deserve no less — and the time, the political moment calls for it. It should be clear to everyone.”

But Stachelberg maintained Obama already has a circle of senior advisers who counsel him on LGBT issues — including Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the president; Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council, and John Berry, who’s gay and director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — and said the appointment of a senior LGBT adviser would be redundant.

“What the White House has with respect to LGBT issues is a senior leadership team to work on these issues,” Stachelberg said. “It’s important that it’s not just about a person, but that it’s about the senior leadership team that the president has around him that really deals with these issues all the time.”

Supporters of repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ have turned up the heat on President Obama in recent weeks. Sunday’s White House protest marked the third time in two months that activists were arrested while demanding action on repeal. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In the wake of Defense Secretary Robert Gates advising Congress to delay taking action to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” LGBT advocates remain committed to pushing for repeal this year, but have expressed differing opinions on the best way forward.

In an April 30 letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Gates says “in the strongest possible terms” that the Department of Defense must be allowed to conduct its review of lifting the ban on open service before Congress takes “any legislative action.” The report is due to be completed Dec. 1.

Gates says “a critical element” of the review is engaging the armed forces and military families and noted that those in service “must be afforded” the opportunity to share “concerns, insights and suggestions” about the proposed change.

“Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital engagement process,” Gates says. “Further, I hope Congress will not do so, as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and consequence for them and their families.”

In a statement responding to the letter, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said President Obama’s commitment to repealing the ban on service “is unequivocal,” but noted the White House is on board with delaying implementation of repeal.

“That’s why we’ve said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed,” he said.

The White House didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to clarify whether this statement rules out an endorsement from Obama on including repeal as part of the upcoming Defense authorization bill or whether the president supports a vote in Congress now to repeal the gay ban, as long as implementation is delayed until 2011.

The impact of the two statements on the effort to achieve legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year remains unclear. Some experts previously said repeal was only one or two votes short on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but that may change following Gates’ request for a delay.

David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign, said repeal remains possible this year.

“We think it should and can happen this year, and that is what we are fighting for,” Smith said. “We continue to work with both the House and the Senate.”

Smith said HRC continues to lobby the White House for support in the effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

He added the grassroots work and lobbying that HRC is pursuing in six states — Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Virginia and West Virginia — would be an important part of the path toward winning the votes necessary for repeal.

In anticipation of the defense authorization bill markup in the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 24, the work is intended to influence key senators on the panel who are uncommitted on repeal: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

“The key is the votes and we think we’re close and we think that, at the end of the day, we’ll have those votes, and that’s what we continue to work for,” Smith said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the best way to make repeal happen following the publication of the Gates letter is working with repeal advocates on Capitol Hill.

“We strongly believe repeal can happen, but this will require the president to lead the way at this critical hour,” Sarvis said. “To put it bluntly, we need his voice and help now.”

Some Hill supporters of repeal are staying mum following publication of the Gates letter and the White House statement. The office of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) declined to comment on the letter, and the office of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the sponsor of repeal legislation in the House, was quoted in an interview with The Advocate this week as saying he was “blindsided” by the Gates letter, but still plans to pursue repeal this year.

“That’s my job — to make sure that we repeal this policy,” he said. “After my three years in Washington, I think when folks tell you to walk away, that’s usually a sign that you’re getting close.”

In the letter, Gates said he was responding to an April 28 inquiry from Skelton, who opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal at this time. Skelton’s inquiry and Gates’ letter come on the heels of an announcement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that she plans to hold a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal this year in her chamber.

“It is the speaker’s intention that a vote will be taken this year on [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] in the House,” Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, told the Blade last week.

In response to a subsequent Blade inquiry about Gates’ letter, Hammill said April 30 that Pelosi’s position was unchanged, although he used slightly different language.

“The speaker maintains her hope to repeal this discriminatory policy this year,” Hammill said.

Separately, Pelosi issued a statement calling for a moratorium on discharges of gay service members.

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department,” she said. “In the meantime, the administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”

Disappointment with President Obama’s lack of support for a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year led around 300 protesters to rally at the White House on Sunday.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean made a surprise appearance at the rally as six protesters were arrested after they handcuffed themselves to the White House gates.

The rally, a collaborative effort of GetEqual and Queer Rising, was aimed to move President Obama to call on Congress to include repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces as part of upcoming Defense Department budget legislation.

People at the rally carried signs reading, “Study: Navy has some bigots — Duh!” and “Mr. Obama, What’s the hold up?”

At one point, demonstrators chanted, “What do we want? Full equality! When do we want it? Now!” They also shouted, “Shame on Obama! Shame on your silence!”

Speaking before attendees, Dean said an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is necessary because it robs the U.S. military of crucial personnel, such as Arabic translators.

“We can’t afford to lose any talented people, and to kick talented people out of the military because they happen to be gay or lesbian makes no sense at all,” he said.

The six protesters who handcuffed themselves to the White House gates Sunday were Anne Tischer of Rochester, N.Y.; Mark Reed of Dallas; and Alan Bounville, Nora Camp, Iana DiBona and Natasha Dillon, all of New York City.

As they handcuffed themselves, protesters chanted, “I am somebody, and I deserve full equality.”

Led by Lt. Dan Choi, who was previously arrested twice for handcuffing himself to the White House fence, the crowd shouted out the Pledge of Allegiance to the six people handcuffed to the fence. After reciting the last line of “With liberty and justice for all,” attendees repeated the refrain, “For all! For all!”

After the six demonstrators were arrested, Paul Yandura, an organizer with GetEqual, said they were charged with misdemeanor failure to obey a lawful order. He noted that each paid a fine of $100 and their cases are now closed.

Those attending the rally said they joined the event to show their frustration with Obama and his approach toward “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Erika Knepp of Annapolis, Md., said it’s “absolutely ridiculous” that Obama hasn’t called for repeal this year.

“He was voted on making promises, and that’s all it’s come to,” she said. “We had the National Equality March to make him promise to keep his promises, and there’s been nothing so far, and it makes me very angry.”

Also expressing anger at the rally over Obama’s handling of the issue was a gay Army Reserve Office Training Corps student at Georgetown University, who spoke to the Blade on the condition of anonymity to avoid being expelled under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The student said he felt Obama “betrayed” him because the president has not fulfilled his campaign promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“When he said that, I was really relieved, knowing that I might be able to come out without having to lie all the time to my peers,” said the student. “But after learning that the White House is not following through on that, it’s actually disappointing.”

Many repeal advocates now see a delayed implementation bill as the best chance for overturning the law this year.

Such a measure would technically meet the standards set forth in the White House statement, which said “the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed.”

HRC’s Smith called delayed implementation an “essential” component of any bill that would pass this year.

“I believe that the work of the working group likely needs to be completed before repeal can be implemented, but it still can be executed this year and implemented over a period of time based on the working group recommendations,” he said.

Sarvis said SLDN has supported the approach of delayed implementation before in what he called a “60-60-60” plan for repeal.

“We delay repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] for 180 days after the president signs the defense bill to ensure a timely transition to open service and an orderly implementation,” he said.

Under the plan, Gates would retain authority for discharges immediately upon the legislation’s passage. An estimated 60 days later, the Pentagon working group would make its recommendations on Dec. 1. After an additional 60 days passes, the Defense Department could issue guidelines on implementing open service, and 60 days later, the services can issue their own regulations.

The issue of whether the White House would support delayed implementation legislation came up during a panel discussion on May 1 at the Equality Forum, an annual LGBT summit in Philadelphia.

Brian Bond, LGBT liaison for the White House, sidestepped a question about whether the Obama administration would support passing delayed implementation legislation.

When the letter came up during a panel discussion highlighting LGBT officials in the White House, Bond read a prepared White House statement saying Obama’s commitment to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “unequivocal,” but that the president wants to wait on implementing repeal until the Pentagon completes its study of the law.

“If change were easy, we wouldn’t be having to have this fight right now,” Bond said. “I think that letter is a good example of how this is going to be a fight and a challenge.”

In response to the statement, Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff, who was on the panel with Bond, asked whether repeal supporters could infer that the president supports a congressional vote for repeal “as long as the implementation is delayed until after December.”

Bond didn’t say whether the White House supports such a move, but noted an endorsement of such a proposal is part of an “ongoing discussion.”

“I think that’s an ongoing discussion right now,” Bond said. “Again, there are several camps here trying to figure out — don’t forget, at the end of the day, it is Congress that will repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ not us.”

Bond said the president is committed to his campaign promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and that Obama has made clear “on any number of times that we are working on this.”

“It’s not going to be easy,” Bond said. “It’s going to messy. It was about this same time last year that my phone was blowing up and my e-mails were blowing up that we’re not going to get hate crimes done. So, I guess what I would say to you is the president has not changed his position.”

But Bond’s comments didn’t appease some on the panel, who expressed disappointment with Obama’s work on LGBT issues in the nearly 18 months that he’s been in the White House.

Panel moderator Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, noted a growing impatience in the LGBT community with Obama.

“We are impatient and, I think, a lot of the folks out there are impatient,” he said. “Whether it was the ‘fierce advocate’ speech, or whether it was the campaign, we heard a little bit more zeal than we feel right now.”

In a subsequent panel, Choi had stern words for the president on the issue and gave him a D-minus for his handling of LGBT issues.

“I’m absolutely dissatisfied by the thinking of the entire administration that hundreds of soldiers [losing] their jobs this year is not as important as a handful of Democrats who might lose their jobs,” Choi said.

The recently published letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates advising Congress to wait on a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote has led to dispute among repeal advocates on the best way to move forward with legislation.

While most organizations are now saying the best way to proceed is a delayed implementation bill — or legislation that Congress would pass now and would take effect only after the Pentagon completes its study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — one advocate is proposing a different strategy that was recently shot down by other groups.

In the weekend following the publication of the Gates letter, Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military, circulated a proposed statement calling for legislation that would repeal the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, 10 USC § 654, and provide no mandate to the Pentagon on whether to discharge openly LGBT service members.

The draft statement recalls a 2008 Palm Center report in which a commission of retired generals and admirals recommended a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute and to “return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.” The report leaves the decision on whether or not to discharge LGBT service members to the Pentagon.

Adopting the views of this commission, the proposal Belkin circulated says legislation returning authority to DOD is the best way to go because “optimal policy sometimes collides with political reality.”

“Consistent with the 2008 General and Flag Officer’s Report, we believe that by repealing 10 USC § 654 and returning authority for personnel policy to the Department of Defense at this time, Congress would enhance national security,” the statement reads. “Repeal would not require the military to take action, but would enable it to implement forthcoming recommendations from the Pentagon study group.”

The statement calls on congressional leadership and the LGBT community “to consider this option seriously.”

Belkin said he circulated this statement because he believes repeal with no mandate for non-discrimination is “the best the community can get” after the publication of Gates’ letter. He added passage of legislation returning authority to the Pentagon would be “a huge victory” and “basically 90 percent of what we need.”

According to Belkin, most of the major repeal organizations signed this statement in support, but removed their names before the statement could be formally published. Belkin declined to identify which advocates initially signed their name or say why they ultimately decided to remove their signatures.

Belkin also said he was the target of hostility among repeal advocates for circulating this proposal.

“Emotions are running pretty high and I’ve already been yelled at and accused of abandoning the troops, seeking publicity for its own sake, and other bad stuff,” he said.

Belkin said he’s hopeful his “political logic is wrong” on this issue and repeal advocates “will be able to secure passage of repeal along with a non-discrimination mandate at some point in the next two or three years.”

With support for his proposal withdrawn, Belkin said he’s “not sure” whether he’ll solicit additional support at a later time to ask repeal advocates to come on board with his idea.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he was solicited for approval of the proposal, but never signed in support.

“I don’t think right now — with the way things are currently aligned and the way things are currently set up strategically — I don’t think that that is best the route to go,” Nicholson said.

Still, Nicholson said the option of legislation that would repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute and return authority to the Pentagon has been discussed among repeal advocates. Nicholson said some repeal supporters said they won’t endorse any legislation that lacks non-discrimination language in any event, but he said his position is more nuanced.

“It’s an option that I’ve said under certain circumstances could be merited, but I don’t it’s the right thing right now — because things are happening real fast — and things are changing several times a day sometimes,” he said.

Repeal supporters in Congress like Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) or Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Nicholson said, may “decide it’s in our best interest to go that route” if the votes are lacking for an alternative. But Nicholson said he thinks “we’re not there yet.”

Nicholson said he was told Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was being consulted on the proposal, and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, had already signed on to the proposal.

“People were sort of trusting Aaron, and I think when people read it, they decided, OK, this isn’t something that I want to support,” Nicholson said.

David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, denied Solmonese signed his name to the statement and later removed it. He said he wouldn’t discuss behind-the-scenes policy discussions among repeal advocates and maintained HRC isn’t on board with Belkin’s proposal.

Sarvis also said he didn’t sign on to the proposal and said SLDN has “made clear” it will continue to fight for legislation for “full repeal this year.”

In lieu of legislation to return authority to the Pentagon, most repeal advocates are pressing for a delayed implementation bill as the best chance for legislation that would pass this year.

Such a measure would technically meet standard set forth in a White House statement on Friday following the publication of Gates letter, which said “the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed.”

Smith went so far as to call delayed implementation an “essential” component of any bill that would achieve legislative success this year.

“I believe that the work of the working group likely needs to be completed before repeal can be implemented, but it still can be executed this year and implemented over a period of time based on the working group recommendations,” Smith said.

Sarvis said SLDN has supported the approach of delayed implementation before in what he called a “60, 60, 60” plan for repeal.

“We delay repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] for 180 days after the president signs the defense bill to insure a timely transition to open service and an orderly implementation,” he said.

Under the plan, Gates would retain authority for discharges immediately upon the legislation’s passage. An estimated 60 days later, the Pentagon working group would make its recommendations on December 1. Once an additional 60 days passes, the Defense Department can issue guidelines on implementing open service to the services, and 60 days later, the services can issue their own regulations.

Nicholson said the delayed implementation bill is “already a concession itself” from the outright repeal that advocates had previously been pursuing.

“We’re trying to get to a starting point, so we’ve started talking about delayed implementation,” he said. “That seems to be more acceptable to some of those who are not supportive of immediate repeal or an immediate stoppage of discharges.”

Even Belkin called delayed implementation legislation the “best alternative for protecting for our national security” at this point if a bill for outright repeal isn’t possible.

However, Belkin said the situation is different when considering “political reality,” and predicted votes will be lacking in Congress this year for passing a delayed implementation bill.

“The bottom line is that there weren’t enough votes in the Senate for the delayed implementation — or for any bill with an implementation mandate – before Gates’ letter,” Belkin said. “There’s certainly not enough votes after the letter, and so it’s not a policy objection to the bill, it’s a question of political reality.”

The entirety of the Palm Center draft proposal as provided by Belkin follows:

STATEMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE ‘DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL’ REPEAL COMMUNITY

As is widely known, the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” consists of two related but distinct parts: a law known as 10 USC § 654 and a series of Pentagon implementing regulations which spell out how the military is to carry out Congressional law. Two years ago, a bipartisan commission of retired General and Flag Officers from every service released a report in which they recommended that Congress repeal 10 USC § 654 in order to “return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.” The commission said little about the implementing regulations.

Members of the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community have said that when Congress repeals 10 USC § 654, it should simultaneously require the military to establish a standard of non-discrimination with respect to sexual-orientation. The community is correct in noting that without that statutory mandate from Congress, the Pentagon might leave current implementing regulations in place, or might revise them in such a way as to perpetuate discrimination. If the goal is to improve national security while treating gay service members just like everybody else, then Congress should repeal 10 USC § 654 and mandate non-discrimination.

As is the case in so many different issue areas, however, optimal policy sometimes collides with political reality. Consistent with the 2008 General and Flag Officer’s Report, we believe that by repealing 10 USC § 654 and returning authority for personnel policy to the Department of Defense at this time, Congress would enhance national security. Repeal would not require the military to take action, but would enable it to implement forthcoming recommendations from the Pentagon study group. We have confidence that with the repeal of 10 USC § 654, the process will come to a successful completion.  We urge Congressional leadership as well as members of our own community to consider this option seriously.

The director and deputy director of the Human Rights Campaign’s communications department have left their jobs following a staff restructuring.

Both departures come after HRC announced March 15 it had created the new position of vice president of communications and marketing, naming the communications head of the gay oriented Gill Foundation, Fred Sainz, to fill the new post.

In creating the new position, HRC eliminated its position of director of communication, resulting in the layoff of Brad Luna, who held that post for the past four years, according to David Smith, HRC’s vice president for programs.

Luna’s departure from HRC on March 26 was followed one week later by the resignation of the HRC deputy communications director, Trevor Thomas, who’s taking a position with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Smith said.

“In this rapidly changing and often volatile political environment, HRC must continue to both prod and persuade in our mission to improve the lives of LGBT people across the country,” HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a March 15 statement announcing Sainz’s appointment.

“And often a key component in changing hearts and minds or moving recalcitrant elected officials is an aggressive and creative communications strategy,” Solmonese said.

He said Sainz, who served as press secretary for San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders before joining the Gill Foundation, “brings deep political instincts and a commitment to LGBT equality that will enhance our work. We’re thrilled to have him join our senior team.”

Smith told DC Agenda on Friday that the restructuring of the HRC communications department was prompted by political and societal changes in recent years. He said Sainz is scheduled to begin at HRC on May 10.

“With our vibrant Foundation programs — Workplace, Religion and Faith; Family and Campus Outreach; and the shifting political and societal landscape on which our political and legislative work continues, it’s important for the organization to grow and adapt,” Smith said in an e-mail.

Smith did not respond to a question asking whether Luna’s layoff and Thomas’s resignation stemmed from disagreements over HRC policy or strategy.

On March 18, two days after it announced the appointment of Sainz and the restructuring of its communications department, HRC came under fire from some activists for teaming up with comedienne Kathy Griffin in a Washington rally supporting the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The rally, which drew about 1,000 people, took place in Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington.

Sentiment by some activists that Griffin’s off-color humor was not appropriate for a serious issue like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was underscored by gay Army Lt. Dan Choi, who expressed such a view in unscheduled remarks at the rally.

On stage, Choi asked the crowd to march with him to the White House, about four blocks away. Several hundred people followed Choi to the White House, where he and former Army Capt. Jim Pietrangelo handcuffed themselves to the White House fence in an action the two did not announce in advance.

Police arrested Choi and Pietrangelo, along with activist Robin McGhee, who assisted the men, creating a civil disobedience event that overshadowed the HRC rally and triggered a national debate among LGBT activists over the movement’s strategy and tactics.

The Human Rights Campaign is affirming its commitment to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year as part of its legislative agenda in Congress.

HRC President Joe Solmonese outlined during a Feb. 27 fundraising dinner speech in Raleigh, N.C., expectations for the passage of pro-LGBT federal legislation in Congress, including the repeal of the 1993 barring open service in the U.S. military.

In a DC Agenda interview following the event, David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, elaborated on the remarks that Solmonese gave during the dinner.

Smith restated HRC’s commitment to seeing this year the enactment of domestic partner benefits for federal workers, domestic partner tax relief and the Early Treatment for HIV Act, as well as repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He also cautioned against reading too much into the Solmonese’s remarks and said HRC is working on other tasks beyond what Solmonese mentioned.

DC Agenda: Joe said during the dinner that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be brought to an end this year. What is your plan for making that happen?

David Smith: Well, Chris, we’ve been talking about that for months, and there’s been a lot of public dialogue on a path to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There are obviously a number of options on the table. Somebody just reminded me you have our campaign, so you are well aware of how we hope to move forward on that. (Editor’s note: See “Questions surround Lieberman’s ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal bill”)

Agenda: But what leads you to believe you can accomplish “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal this year?

Smith: We’ve been saying that for months — that this is year for it to be repealed and we’re mobilizing our campaign to accomplish just that.

Agenda: What has the White House been saying on this issue? Does the White House want repeal this year or does it want to wait until the Pentagon review is finished?

Smith: The White House has publicly said that they’re following this process that was set up with [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates and [Chairman of Joint of Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael] Mullen — and that’s precisely what they’re doing is — following the process that was outlined at the Senate Armed Services Committee however many weeks ago that was now.

Agenda: What will happen if repeal doesn’t happen this year?

Smith: We fully expect repeal to happen this year. That’s what we’re working towards.

Agenda: What about two items Joe mentioned that were in the House version of the health care reform: the domestic partner tax penalty elimination and the Early Treatment for HIV Act? They’re not in the president’s proposed legislation. Do you plan to have those provisions moving forward as part of the health care package?

Smith: As far as I understand, the plan right now is that he put forward some broad outlines in terms of how the Senate bill can reconcile with the House bill. And every particular wasn’t included in those policy proposals, so it is still our hope that DP tax and ETHA will be included in whatever fix is — whatever they come up with to reconcile those two bills.

Agenda: How do you see the process going to move forward with health care reform?

Smith: Well, Chris, every reporter in this city, whether they work for DC Agenda or the New York Times is trying to figure out exactly how the process is going to work. They are still figuring it out, or if not still figuring it out, they’re not being open about how it moves forward.

I’ve read many different things, and they certainly are not talking to a whole bunch of people about it. But one version is the House passes the Senate bill, and the Senate introduces a reconciliation bill that fixes the Senate in accordance to what the House wants. There’s many different ways that this could all shake out. But it is still our hope that DP tax relief and ETHA will be included in whatever final resolution there is.

Agenda: And you’re expecting that to happen this year?

Smith: Yes.

Agenda: What about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act? What do you see as the path for that legislation now?

Smith: Well, as you well know, it’s been passed out of both committees in both the House and Senate in various committees of jurisdiction. It is probably our most ripest piece of legislation in terms of how many times it has had a hearing and markup, so again it is our ripest piece of legislation and indications are that it will happen this year.

Agenda: And you’re expecting it to happen this year?

Smith: Yes.

Agenda: I know there was an issue with how Sen. Joseph Lieberman wanted the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to provide information it would offset the costs of that legislation within the existing budget. Do you know if that issue has yet been resolved?

Smith: I don’t believe it has, but I still think they are definitely looking for an offset and we have every reason to believe that they’re going to find it.

Agenda: Do you have any expectations for a timeline on when we can see floor votes on this legislation in either the House or the Senate?

Smith: No. I mean, I think the rest of the [congressional] calendar is completely up in the air this year.

Agenda: Joe mentioned four things that were part of the calender this year. Why wasn’t [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] included among these four?

Smith: Joe spoke about ENDA in those remarks. It was one speech in one part of the country. It’s not going to be — one speech is not reflective of what we’re working on.

Clearly, there’s a very good possibility there could be movement on ENDA in the House. As you reported, there are issues with the Senate. We’re all, as a coalition, [we] are continuing to work through those issues. And you come to work every day trying to pass legislation, and ENDA is one of our top priorities. And each and every day we’re fighting for it, and you keep pressing until these things happen.

Agenda: But do you think there is as strong a possibility of passing ENDA as the other four things we just talked about?

Smith: Again, I think there are issues in the Senate, which I think are challenges, and we’re working through those challenges with our colleagues and our coalition.

Agenda: Another thing that wasn’t mentioned in Joe’s speech was the Uniting American Families Act. Do you think attaching as part of comprehensive immigration reform can lead to passage of UAFA this year?

Smith: We continue to press to get UAFA into the process. UAFA is one our priorities, and we continue to work on that as well.

Again, Chris, I want to stress, one speech is not going cover every single issue that we’re working on. You should be aware of that. So one speech does not an entire agenda make.

We’re continuing to work on repealing [the Defense of Marriage Act], UAFA, domestic partner benefits for federal employees. There’s a list of efforts that we’re working towards and each one is in various stages of the process.

Activists are ramping up efforts this year to push for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while remembering that similar optimism in 1993 on lifting the ban on gays serving openly led to the law’s creation.

Last week, President Obama affirmed his commitment during the State of the Union address to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” noting that he’d work this year with Congress and military leaders to end the law. His announcement brought new life to the issue in the mainstream media and among activist groups.

But amid this activity, the shadow of what took place in 1993, when LGBT advocates had similar optimism about lifting the ban, is influencing the work that’s happening today.

When former President Bill Clinton took office 17 years ago, advocates expected him to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the ban preventing gays from serving in the military. Since there was no federal law on the issue at the time, the only step required to end the ban was administrative action.

But resistance from Congress — particularly from then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn — and opposition from military leaders such as then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell thwarted Clinton’s efforts to end the ban.

The result was the 1993 law that came to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which at the time was billed as a compromise because it would ostensibly allow gays to serve in the U.S. military provided they didn’t disclose their sexual orientation.

Many activists have said Clinton was unable to fulfill his promise to end the ban because the LGBT community didn’t provide him with sufficient political cover to accomplish his goal.

Clinton also holds this view. After gay activist Lane Hudson questioned him on the matter last year during the Netroots Nation conference, Clinton told an audience of bloggers that advocates in 1993 “couldn’t deliver” support in the Congress needed to administratively end the ban.

David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign, in 1993 was communications director for the Campaign for Military Service, a group that worked to help guide Clinton’s efforts to repeal the ban. While acknowledging LGBT activists made some possible missteps at the time, Smith told DC Agenda that a number of obstacles contributed to the creation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” not just deficiencies from activists.

“You had a very exuberant, politically naïve community combined with a politically naïve new president, a Democratic-controlled Congress that wasn’t all that enthusiastic about lifting the ban, and you had a Republican minority in Congress that was dying to regain the majority and inflict political harm on the new president and the Democratic Congress,” Smith said.

Smith said the LGBT community might have fared better if the issue had come up later in Clinton’s term as opposed to soon after he took office.

“In retrospect, I think if the community would have waited a year or two to better understand military resistance and understand congressional resistance, and mapped out a plan, Congress wouldn’t have been so quick to impose a law, and there might have been a different path,” Smith said.

Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire” and research fellow at the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was similarly reluctant to ascribe the failure of lifting the ban in 1993 solely to shortcomings from the LGBT community.

“Yes, the gay community could have done more if it was bigger, more organized, better funded,” Frank said. “Political leaders need the pressure of constituents to help them get done what they need to get done, but I think that President Clinton there was really evading responsibility.”

Learning from mistakes

Whatever responsibility LGBT supporters had in creating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” activists this year are learning from mistakes made at that time to support Obama in his goal of repealing the law.

Smith said one of the lessons learned from 1993 on repeal is to make tactical decisions after thoughtful planning. He noted that his organization has been “quietly pressing for action” for months on this issue in Congress and in the administration.

A more public campaign, Smith said, will launch soon and target states with lawmakers who would be key to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Smith estimated the campaign would cost more than $2 million and would involve grassroots and grasstops efforts as well as earned and paid media.

“It’s very targeted, but again it’s still unclear exactly how this is going to unfold and it could go in any number of directions,” Smith said. “We need to be ready to deal with whatever direction it does go in to make sure the ultimate outcome is what we all expect.”

Smith declined to comment on which states HRC would target in its campaign or what the comment of earned and paid media, saying that such information needed to remain confidential for tactical reasons.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization also is ramping up efforts amid the greater push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“We always hoped it would happen sooner rather than later, but I think it’s definitely been a surprise that the president has decided to include this issue in the State of the Union and to move forward on this quickly,” Nicholson said. “So we’re obviously trying to rapidly expand our capacity, roll out a number of campaigns and initiatives that we wanted to get underway.”

Nicholson said Servicemembers United has been getting numerous media calls and has been identifying LGBT service members and veterans to respond to those requests. He also noted that his organization is trying to identify high-ranking retired military members who are straight and support allowing gays to serve openly.

Additionally, Nicholson said organizations opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are having a larger number of collaborative meetings and working to “share information, share intelligence, share resources, work together more closely.”

But the lessons learned from 1993 are hanging over all efforts to repeal the law this year. Frank said advocates of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should keep in mind the arguments that opponents of gays in the military used then in the new push for overturning the law.

“The first thing that gay advocates should do is understand the history of the tactics the people used the last time — the fear tactics, the delay tactics, the dishonesty, the slippery slope arguments — making this much scarier and complicated than it really is,” Frank said.

Frank also cautioned against underestimating the vehemence with which opponents of gays in the military will defend the status quo.

“The religious right has been somewhat quiet on social issues in the last year and the media have been quiet on social issues,” Frank said. “They haven’t been as big, but make no mistake, they’ll come roaring back, so it’s important not to underestimate the vehemence of homophobia and the strength of the opposition to reform in military or religious circles.”

Still, Frank said advocates should be ready to differentiate between those who have “genuine anxiety” about what the change means for the U.S. military and those who are expressing concern simply to block repeal.

While it’s unclear what opponents of repeal are planning this year, Smith said HRC is anticipating the traditional faces — such as Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — to “get in their TV makeup” to build opposition to repealing the law.

Familiar arguments

Opponents of gays in the military are starting to emerge with familiar arguments that were often used in 1993.

Following Obama’s State of the Union address, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), who’s quickly becoming the primary opponent of any “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. Senate, issued a statement in support of current policy.

McCain noted that “we have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country,” suggesting that ending the ban on gays serving openly would be detrimental to unit cohesion and take away from the U.S. military’s standing in the world.

Jarrod Chlapowksi, a gay U.S. Army veteran who supports HRC in its Voices of Honor tour, said “there’s a ton of ways” for supporters of repeal to approach McCain’s argument.

“The unit cohesion argument has been disproven numerous times,” he said. “We have the example of Israel. I don’t think anyone would say Israel has a weak military by any means, and that tends to be a pretty strong example. But there really is nothing supporting McCain’s position that this would be detrimental to unit cohesion.”

Another frequently used argument against allowing gays to serve in the military that could emerge again is concern about whether straight service members would be comfortable using shared shower facilities with gay troops.

But Chlapowksi said that concern can be allayed by noting that gay service members are already showering with straight troops and the change in policy hasn’t been shown to be disruptive in other countries.

“We already share showers, we already share foxholes, we already share barracks,” he said. “The only change is that you know who’s gay and who’s not. The reality is that’s not going to cause someone to go crazy and to make an exodus of troops.”

Even with the experience of 1993 looming over activists, much has changed in 17 years. Recent polls consistently show that a majority of the public supports repeal, and have even found that a majority of conservatives favor allowing gays to serve openly.

Smith said opponents of gays of military could thus have the issue backfire on them if they handle it incorrectly.

“The country is facing economic hardship, two wars — and if Republicans spend a lot of time trying to create political animosity around this issue, it could backfire on them big time,” Smith said. “But our opposition is not to be underestimated.”