Secretary of the Army John McHugh said in an interview with the Army Times that the Army could handle a repeal of the controversial Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy without major disruption, but refused to offer his personal views on the issue. From the Army Times:

McHugh finds himself at the center of debate over Obama’s pledge to repeal the law banning open service by homosexuals.

In the interview, McHugh carefully avoided offering his personal views on the issue, saying his job now is to provide input to Obama on how to make the change and to talk with members of Congress about the issue.

Selling the idea to Congress, which has the final say, could depend on exactly what the administration tries to do in terms of the timing of repeal and how it is applied, McHugh said.

It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.

“I don’t want to prejudge the situation,” he said. “I am saying if he did that, it would be my job to explain it when the appropriate time comes.”

When asked specifically if lifting the gay ban would seriously disrupt the military, as predicted by those who oppose repeal, McHugh said there is no reason to think major turmoil would ensue.

“Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that,” he said. “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues, [with] predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out,” he said.

During hearings on DADT back in 2008, McHugh, who then served as a Republican congressman from New York, appeared disappointed with the DoD’s failure to review the policy…

“I share the chairlady’s [Rep. Susan Davis] disappointment that thus far the services, as a whole, have not agreed to step forward. I don’t see as an individual member how I fully and fairly consider this question and more importantly the issue of changing this question without the input of those in the active military who have the heavy responsibility of commanding our forces in time of war. I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance that they have displayed to this point.”

In a historic vote today the Senate passed the The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by an easy margin 68-29, and joins the House of Representatives in sending the historic legislation to President Obama’s desk.

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. It gives them the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

Supporters of the legislation argued that it would deter those tempted to attack people out of bigotry, and that extra protections for those victimized because of their sexuality were needed because such crimes have been on the rise.

Opponents argued to no avail that the new measure was unnecessary in view of existing laws and might interfere with local law enforcement agencies. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he agreed that hate crimes were terrible. “That’s why they are already illegal,” he said, asserting that the new law was a dangerous, even “Orwellian” step toward “thought crime.”

Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard for whom the bill is named responded to the news…

“Dennis and I are extremely proud of the Senate for once again passing this historic measure of protection for victims of these brutal crimes,” said Judy Shepard, president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board. “Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile. Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families.”

Senator Fiengold was the only Democrat who voted against the bill, most likely because he disagreed with some aspect of the military spending and not because of hate crimes. The Nays in the roll call are the usual suspects and appear below:

This could hardly be a better time for this to be making the rounds again on the eve of the marriage equality vote in Maine. During hearings on gay marriage last April, Philip Spooner, an 86-year-old D-Day veteran gave the following testimony:

“The woman at my polling place asked me do I believe in equality for gay and lesbian people. I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?”

Watch the entire clip below…

Last week Rep. Pete Stark of California introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act which denies federal funding to states with adoption programs that discriminate on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity. From the Washington Blade:

Stark said in an interview that he introduced the legislation, H.R. 3827, in part because thousands of children each year “age out” of the child welfare system without finding homes.

“We got 25,000 kids a year maturing out of the welfare system without permanent foster care or adoptive care, and the prospects of those children having a successful adult life are diminished greatly,” he said. “These are kids who end up in the criminal justice system, or end up homeless.”

States with explicit restrictions on adoption that the pending legislation would affect are Utah, Florida, Arkansas, Nebraska and Mississippi. Florida, for example, has a statute specifically prohibiting gays from adopting, and in Arkansas, voters last year approved Act 1, which prevents unmarried co-habitating couples, including same-sex partners, from adopting children.

The legislation, Stark said, also would restrict funds for states where restrictions are put in place by agencies, individual social workers or judges, or where restrictions are part of the common law of the state.

For states that don’t comply with the law, federal officials could withhold from the states funds provided to them for child welfare services. The bill also calls.

This is very good news, and it’s likely to create quite a curfuffle among the religious right, and Catholics in particular. Take Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for example, who appeared on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club last week to pimp his new book and said this about gays and adoption: “We’re not going to allow gay people to adopt children. That’s against nature. It’s against nature’s God! But they won’t stop!”

If H.R. 3827 passes, perhaps it will be the event that finally makes Bill’s head explode. We can dream can’t we?