Mitt Romney indicated he would preserve the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during an interview with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board this afternoon, drawing a clear distinction with opponent Newt Gingrich, who has said he would ban gays and lesbians from serving openly if elected president:

QUESTION: How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military.

ROMNEY: That’s already occurred and I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.

QUESTION: But you’re comfortable with it?

ROMNEY: Um, I was not comfortable making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on, but those wars are winding down and moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.

Watch it:

Romney had hinted that he might bring back the ban during a June debate in New Hampshire, but has historically maintained that he opposes changing the policy during wartime.

Asked about marriage equality, Romney reiterated his support for a federal marriage amendment, but explained that a strong push for the measure would be politically futile. He also refused to say what else — if anything — he would do to work against same-sex marriage. Romney previously opposed a federal amendment, saying that questions of marriage should be left to the states.

A new Public Policy Polling poll shows that not only are North Carolina voters split on the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but they also don’t understand the extent of its impact. According to the poll, 58 percent of North Carolina voters say they will vote for the amendment in May, with respondents from all political parties supporting the measure. However, 56 percent of voters simultaneously report that they favor same-sex marriage (27 percent) or civil unions (29 percent).

This clear contradiction reveals a severe lack of education about the actual effect of the amendment. The text of it reads:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

This means that the state constitution would ban recognition of all of the following:

• Same-sex marriages.
• Same-sex civil unions.
• Same-sex domestic partnerships.
• Opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

In fact, because of how the amendment was rushed through the legislature without proper checks on the text, it may even prohibit private businesses from offering benefits to domestic partners, including opposite-sex couples.

There seems to be a significant movable middle that would oppose the discriminatory amendment if they actually understood how harmful it could be to North Carolina society. Unfortunately, there are only 152 days until the vote to correct people’s misconceptions.

For the past week, the Family Research Council has been beating the drum that the Senate’s vote to repeal the military’s archaic sodomy ban (Article 125) also lifts the ban on bestiality. In the process, they recruited People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Michele Bachmann to also raise concerns about legalized bestiality. A World Net Daily reporter even brought the matter up in a White House press briefing.

In reality, the Senate’s decision fulfills the commitment of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to not discriminate against gay troops and does nothing to change prohibitions against bestiality. The military magazine Stars & Stripes reports today that not only does bestiality remain illegal in the military, but that bestiality wasn’t typically prosecuted under Article 125 anyway:

“The department’s position on this issue remains unchanged and that act remains illegal,” said defense spokesman Lt. Col Todd Breasseale. [...]

Even if Article 125 is removed, the UCMJ contains provisions under which troops can be punished. Article 134, for example, forbids “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Breasseale said that would cover any and all animal abuse.

In fact, past instances of bestiality in the military have been prosecuted under that statute, instead of Article 125. The legal record dates back to 1957, when Pvt. Ricardo Sanchez was convicted of “an indecent act with an animal” under Article 134, even without specific wording prohibiting sex with animals.

Ultimately and unsurprisingly, conservatives were merely using this as an opportunity to try to spread fears about the supposed “consequences” of repealing DADT. None of the disasters opponents predicted have come to fruition, and even Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, who originally opposed repeal, has admitted that “Marines across the globe have adapted smoothly and embraced the change.”

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry enshrined his prejudice against gay soldiers in a divisive, anti-gay ad: “You don’t need to be in the pews every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military.”

But speaking before veterans yesterday on the U.S.S. Yorktown in New York City, Perry said that, as president, he would not demand gay soldiers be discharged if “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was reinstated. Indicating he’d defer that decision to others, he said, “I think you go back and you have that conversation with the civilian leaders and the military leaders on how you want to deal with them.” Watch it:

In other words, Perry is suggesting that openly gay and lesbian servicemembers undermine unit cohesion and military effectiveness — particularly during a time of war — but not enough to warrant a discharge. What’s even less clear is how Perry would procedurally reinstate a policy — squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube — after servicemembers have already come out. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Do Forget?

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether to disqualify Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for failing to publicly admit to a long-term same-sex relationship when he struck down California’s Proposition 8. Proponents of the measure sought to convince the rather skeptical three-judge panel that Walker was “in the same kind of relationship as the plaintiffs” and was unfit to rule on the question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry because he himself may one day wish to wed his partner. “The question is, was he in a position to try his own case?” the proponents’ attorney Charles Cooper asked. The judges remained incredulous, pressing Cooper if a married judge could ever hear a case about divorce:

“So a married judge could never hear a divorce?” [Judge R. Randy] Smith asked.

“Your honor, I don’t see the difficulty with a married judge hearing a divorce action,” Cooper answered.

Smith replied: “Would he have to disclose, ‘Oh, I’ve been married, and we’ve been married for 24 years and we have a relationship that’s kind of difficult’? That’s what you are arguing here?”

Cooper said the hypothetical situation Smith described was different because if Walker, who is now retired, had “desired to marry his partner, he would have stood in exactly the same shoes as the plaintiffs in this case.”

David Boies, a lawyer representing the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to strike down Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, attacked Cooper’s reasoning, arguing that judicial ethics rules never have required judges to bow out of civil rights cases because they are members of the minority group whose constitutional rights are at issue.

Cooper’s “perverse logic is that only judges, gay or straight, who have no interest in marrying and the institution of marriage would be the only ones who could hear this case,” Boies said. “A heterosexual judge may feel passionately about preserving the institution of marriage. Does that judge have an obligation to volunteer, to come forward, to tell the parties what his views of marriage are and his views of the institution of marriage?”

As Ian Millhiser has noted, “if a court were to accept the anti-gay group’s arguments, it would also follow that no judge who is presently in a committed opposite-sex relationship would be allowed to hear this case either. The name of the organization defending Prop 8 is “Protect Marriage,” a name that derives from their bizarre belief that same-sex marriages are destructive to opposite-sex marriages. But if this were true, than straight judges would have a personal stake in ensuring that their own marriages are not undermined by a decision striking down Prop 8 — and thus would also be required to recuse.”

The 9th Circuit seemed far more inclined to side with Prop. 8 proponents’ argument for why the video tape of Walker’s trial should be kept private, however, and appeared to agree with the proponents’ claim that the judge had only “promised to use a videotape of the trial in chambers only, and that the tape was never meant to be publicly broadcast.”