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.”

K2 Productions, the folks behind Miss California USA, have filed a counter suit against former Miss California and opposite marriage advocate Carrie Prejean for reimbursement of $5200 for a boob job and plenty more.

“Even before she became notorious for that answer and the ensuing media storm, Ms. Prejean was already causing difficulty,” the K2 counter-suit states.

“With her new-found notoriety, an inflated sense of self, and the lure of financial gain available to her, Ms. Prejean turned even further against the Miss California USA organization.”

The new suit accuses Prejean of missing events, lying about semi-nude photos, negotiating an unauthorized book deal and using her title without authorization to help promote the National Organization for Marriage’s “campaign of intolerance” against gay marriage.

K2 asks for the proceeds from Prejean’s planned book, the $5,200 from the breast surgery and other relief.

“She attempts to cast herself as a virtuous young woman and the victim in a supposed conspiracy against her,” the cross-complaint states.

Prejean is currently suing the Miss USA Pageant for religious discrimination.

With November 4 rapidly approaching and a narrow lead in the polls, the Bangor Daily News and the Portland Press Herald have come out against Question 1 by supporting marriage equality in Maine.

From the Bangor Daily News…

Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.

From the Portland Press Herald…

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That’s why we urge people to vote “no,” to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools – they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

Sound, sensible arguments to be sure, but since when has logic gotten in the way of those who use their faith as a means to justify their hate?

Update: YouTube has yanked this ad as it appears SMM violated National Public Radio’s copyright. Woohoo!

Stand For Marriage Maine has started running this ad.

This despite the fact that Maine’s own Attorney General published a Legal Opinion stating:

“Whatever the benefits and burdens of the civil institution of marriage, the state’s definition of marriage has no bearing on the curricula in our public schools, either under current law or under LD 1020. Neither the Parker decision nor passage of LD 1020 “requires” or “allows” the teaching of any particular subject in our schools, in answer to the citizen question attached to your letter.”

I suppose when you can’t make logical arguments to support your case, you have to resort to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). I just hope the independent minded citizen of Maine take the time to read the Maine AG’s legal opinion and see this ad for the FUD that it is.