Gen. James Conway — the Commandant of the U. S. Marine Corps — has been the most outspoken military opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, going so far as to suggest that straight marines should not live alongside gay servicemembers. But with Conway’s term coming to end, Defense Secretary Robert Gates “has recommended that Gen. James Amos will be the next commandant of the Marine Corps” — a man who is presumably more willing to carry out administration policy and implement new regulations repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

While this consideration is not publicly acknowledged — the Washington Post notes that Gates wanted to shake things up and select “someone who would help the Marine Corps chart a course beyond the current wars“” — his more supportive stance towards ending the DADT likely weighed on the decision:

Sources have informed LezGetReal that General Amos’ position on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell mirrors that of Admiral Michael Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This means that General Amos believes that the study should be finished before the law is repealed, and the best way to move forward on repeal can be determined. General Amos is said to be more open to change than General Conway has been, or either General Dunford or General James Mattis, who were also considered for this job. Additionally, Generals Dunford and Mattis are said to be far less willing to consider a repeal of DADT and far closer to General Conway’s views on the issue of lesbians and gays serving openly.

If Amos is willing to think not only beyond current wars but also conservative social norms — which is where Conway clearly fell short — then his nomination sounds like a good thing for the institution as a whole and particularly its closeted gay members. The success of repeal will depend heavily on how the military implements regulations overturning the ban and Amos probably be willing to explore more inclusive changes than his immediate predecessor.

The other point worth reiterating is that one’s opposition to repealing DADT has more to do with general attitudes about social policy than any kind of concerns about the future of the military. After all, if Gates is willing to nominate someone he hopes will shake up the Marine Corps and secure its future, his selection of Amos — if we are too believe the rumors about his more liberal DAD views — suggests that that is very much compatible with open service.

When congressional Republicans tried in vain to thwart a bill that began the process to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), they were quick to claim they were standing up for the preferences of U.S. military personnel. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that soldiers would be less willing to fight and die “for the guy in the next foxhole” if they knew their fellow soldier was gay. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) ominously suggested that, “If someone has to be overt about their sexuality, whether it’s in a bunker where they’re confined under fire, then it’s a problem.”

Rep. Charles Djou (R-HI) was one of the five GOP representatives to vote for the repeal process. When ABC News asked him about his vote, Djou didn’t said that DADT “just simply doesn’t work” because many soldiers “suddenly claim they are gay” to avoid combat while collecting discharge bonuses. In an interview with ThinkProgress on Monday, he still refuted some of the rhetoric of his colleagues and said that based on his experience as a captain in the Army Reserves, servicemembers would readily adapt to a new policy:

TP: A lot of people are saying that some servicemembers may not defend their comrades if they know they’re gay, or that troops may not accept a change of allowing gay members to serve openly. Do you find this to be true based on your experience?

DJOU: No. No. You know, I think, having been in the service, and I understand that the troops have their own viewpoint on things, which might not nececarily be 100% an exactly reflection of what the average American electorate is, but by and large I have found that with the United States military, and service — members of the service who I have served with, when the civilian officials, the President or the Congress, give an order, a directive, it’s followed, and it’s followed to a tee. That’s what you’re expected to do. And if you can’t do that, then you shouldn’t be in the service and you shouldn’t be wearing the uniform. It’s as simple as that.

Watch it:

Djou’s comments are bolstered by polling data; in a survey commissioned by The Vet Voice Foundation, 73 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans said they’d support allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly, and 58 percent said they already knew gays and lesbians they were serving alongside. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, around 500 U.S. soldiers are “out” to some of their colleagues and continue to serve “without consequence.”

- William Tomasko

A comprehensive analysis of pre-election polling data from 33 states that passed anti-gay marriage initiatives has found that pro and anti marriage equality campaigns have wasted millions of dollars trying to change the minds of voters during short-term campaign seasons. As it turns out, public opinion “typically changed very little over the course of the campaigns”:

“This research underscores what many of us have learned through personal experience,” noted Thalia Zepatos, Director of Public Engagement for Freedom to Marry. “There is no 30-second political ad that can replace thoughtful conversations that committed gay and lesbian people have about marriage with their neighbors at a barbecue, with family members over holiday dinner, and with colleagues at work and at school. Smart public education- outside of intense political battles – that tells the stories of how millions of Americans are harmed by being denied the freedom to marry have resulted in 17% increase in Gallup Poll support for the freedom to marry between 1996 and 2010.”.”

Indeed, the point here seems to be that gay people interacting and building strong relationships with other communities is far more effective for advancing the cause of equal rights than 30-second ads or fliers. Nationally, increased acceptance of gay people has corresponded with the growing number of Americans who now say they personally know a gay person. For instance, a CBS News Poll released earlier this month found that 77% of Americans “say they know someone who is gay or lesbian,” an increase of 35 percentage points since 1992. Simultaneously, only 43% of Americans currently see homosexual relations between consenting adults as “wrong” – a drop of 19 percentage points from a Gallup poll taken in 1978:

All of this may be a condemnation of existing messaging techniques, but it’s also a mixed bag. Gay advocates will have to make some long term investments in actually knowing people, instead of simply pressuring them to vote one way or another. Some of this may occur naturally, as the visibility of gay people increases in politics, the media, and every day interactions, but other campaigns will have to reach-out to people outside the battle zones where the anti-gay marriage ads are no more effective than the marriage equality spots. The other side, meanwhile, will have to force Americans to form long-term relationships with bigots. Good luck with that.

As Judge Vaughn Walker prepares to hear closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger the landmark case against California’s Proposition 8 today, supporters of the measure are urging him to “go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before” voters stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry in November 2008.

The closing arguments come almost five months after testimony ended in January and two years after “the first legal marriages in California on June 16, 2008.” Prop. 8 overturned the court ruling that permitted the marriages and a separate ruling upheld the constitutionality of the measure, “while also affirming the legality of 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the election.”

The Perry case was first filed on May 22, 2009 by The American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of two couples who wish to be married but cannot because of Prop. 8, and led by Theodore Olson and David Boies, the lawyers on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore. Legal scholars have described the case as “the most important battle between tradition and modernity since the Scopes trial” and expect that Judge Walker’s decision — which most certainly will be appealed and could reach the Supreme court in two year — “will be a blockbuster, at least in terms of its scope, depth and detail.” The Foundation describes the case in this way:

At its core, this case is about equal justice under the law. Separate is never equal, and Prop. 8 violates Americans’ constitutional rights by creating separate classes of people with different laws for each one.

Prop. 8 denies fundamental constitutional liberties, which harms adults and their children without due process and for no good reason – no compelling government interest is advanced through Prop. 8. It is wrong to deny people fundamental constitutional liberties, like equal protection under the law, simply because of who they are.

The objective of the lawyers supporting the Prop. 8 was to prove that the state had a rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, but as the LA Times notes, throughout the case, “some of the strongest arguments in favor of same-sex marriage were made by those opposing it.” For instance, “one witness who had been hired to testify that gay men and lesbians wield significant political power — and therefore were not a group that had especially suffered from discrimination — ended up conceding that at least some people voted for Proposition 8 because of prejudice against homosexuals” and “had made statements in the past that minorities were vulnerable to harm from ballot initiatives, and that courts should protect them from such harm.” Another witness, David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified that “preserving traditional marriage should take priority over the rights of gays and lesbians — but then offered no proof that same-sex marriage would in any way harm the institution of marriage, and admitted that marriage would be beneficial to families headed by same-sex couples.”

Documents and videos obtained by Olson and Boies also revealed that “the Prop. 8 campaign paid for broadcasts that sought to link marriage equality to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia to justify the elimination of people’s rights,” suggesting that proponents of the proposition were driven by discriminatory motives, not state interest.

Today’s closing arguments will likely last all day, with a ruling expected in the coming weeks. Walker sent both sides 11 pages of questions he wants addressed in the arguments. You can read their responses here and here or follow live coverage from inside the courtroom here.