Ann Arbor resident Mara Boyd arrested in 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' protest at the White House
From left to right, Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, Lt. Dan Choi, Cpl. Evelyn Thomas, Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II, Cadet Mara Boyd and Petty Officer Larry Whitt, handcuffed themselves to the fence outside the White House during a protest for gay-rights in Washington Tuesday.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais | The Associated Press
Ann Arbor's Mara Boyd was one of six protestors arrested for chaining themselves to the White House gate Tuesday to protest the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for homosexual service members.
Boyd, a native Ann Arborite, was discharged from the Air Force ROTC program at the University of Colorado-Boulder after revealing her homosexuality to a superior officer in September 2002. Boyd was then sent a bill for the schooling she'd gotten for free as an ROTC cadet, her family said.
"That turned her life upside down," said Boyd's brother, Evan. "She still graduated, but she was left with a pretty big tuition bill that she's still paying off."
Mara works retail these days to help pay that bill, and has been an outspoken critic of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since her discharge.
Why did Boyd come out?
"A sense of integrity," she said in a 2004 interview with a journalist at her alma mater. "I had this problem: I had to look my cadets in the eye and lie to them. It was a real struggle, whether I was going to take on immense debt and lose my career, or live a life without integrity. I hesitate to call it a decision — was really my only choice."
Why was Boyd in the Nation's Capital?
She decided to take her protest to the streets after meeting a fellow DADT victim at an April 13 lecture at Eastern Michigan University.
Lt. Dan Choi, an Arabic interpreter and Iraq War veteran, was discharged from the U.S. Army after a March 2009 appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, during which he came out of the closet as a homosexual.
Choi has become one of the faces of the anti-DADT movement. He and Boyd became friends, and a week later Boyd was part of the group of six former service members arrested for chaining themselves to the White House gate.
The protest was staged by GetEQUAL, a gay-rights organization that believes President Barack Obama is dragging his feet on his promise to end the controversial policy.
The day before Tuesday's White House protest, GetEQUAL interrupted Obama's speech at a Los Angeles fundraiser for Democratic California senator Barbara Boxer. GetEQUAL said it will continue protesting DADT, with larger numbers and more in-your-face tactics each time, until a full repeal is achieved. Obama will give the commencement speech at the University of Michigan's graduation ceremony on May 1; no protests have been announced yet.
The Obama administration is studying how best to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military. In March, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued new guidelines for DADT that raise the burden of proof when servicemembers are accused of homosexuality. It will now take more than hearsay for a service member to be discharged.
Evan, Mara's brother, said she and the other protestors are being represented pro-bono by GetEQUAL.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said despite the new DADT guidelines, all 66,000-plus homosexuals in the U.S. could still be discharged if superiors caught wind of their sexual orientation.
Evan said the Boyds expect to hear from Mara sometime today, after she and the others are released from police custody. Boyd is expected to return to Ann Arbor on Friday.
James David Dickson can be reached at JamesDickson@AnnArbor.com.
Comments
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Sat, Apr 24, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.
Boyd,... reveal(ed) her homosexuality to a superior officer in September 2002. [ed: what part of the standing order, 'don;t tell', was unknown? ] she said... "I had to look my cadets in the eye and lie to them." [ed: lie? about what? what part of the standing order, 'don;t tell,' required a lie?] "I hesitate to call it a decision" [ed: Boyd,... reveal(ed) her homosexuality to a superior officer in September 2002. bzzzt: that was a decision] " was really my only choice." [ed: ummmm, no, boyd could have not disobeyed standing orders, that was a choice.] lest anyone fail to see the other side here, 'don;t ask' is ALSO part of the same standing order and were someone to... ASK..., they should be discharged as well for the same insubordination. goose/gander sauce/sauce, etc. from somewhere: 'it ain;t nobody's business but my own'. cred check: 3 yrs active duty; was told by 5-6 service members, (both genders) that they were homosexual. i wished them well, it was only their business in my not so humble opinion.
AAFish
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 7:28 p.m.
@Anonymous due to bigotry -- I think you have WAY too much time on your hands. I stated NOTHING about "moral superiority." Nor would I ever have presumed to do so. Cheers.
Awakened
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.
@Anonymous due to Bigotry I think the difference in logic is the aggressive and sometimes irrational attitudes that young men have toward each other over women. That occaisionally was a problem between squadmates when I was in the Army. We were overseas and stationed in a place with a limited pool of available women. We even had run ins with the local guys. The level of maturity that takes is possible as you mature. But we are talking about 18, 19 and 20 year olds. Or as I call them the "Testosterone Challenged." The guys I served with who we all knew were gay (prior to don't ask don't tell) never had any of those problems that I remember. Your scenario might work with officers (for example: Naval Aviators aboard ship) but not with the youth in my opinion.
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 5:14 p.m.
@AAFish: "As far as the proximity of gays to straights in closely-spaced quarters goes, I submit, from personal experience, that it does not necessarily result in unwelcome advances on straights by gays." Well of course it doesn't necessarily result in sexual harassment, but tell me this. If this type of situation isn't a problem then why don't men and women just share the same quarters? Why should that be any worse than homosexual men and heterosexual men (for example) or even all homosexual men sharing the same quarters? Are you trying to say that homosexuals are morally superior to heterosexuals and don't have a higher chance of sexually harassing or making anyone uncomfortable in such a situation? If objecting to these living conditions is homophobic then objecting to men and women sharing the same quarters and facilities is heterophobic. Someone please explain the logic that I'm missing here.
MR. Language Person
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.
@tdw, et al. Sorry you're getting piled on. I'm about as miltantly pro-gay rights as it gets, but understand where you're coming from. Just think of it this way. You ask me what my plans are for the weekend, and I tell you I'm going to go out to dinner with my wife. No big deal, right? I'm not "shoving my private life in your face," but if I say the same thing with the word, "partner," suddenly I'm inappropriately bringing my private life into the matter. It's not right. As far as your question, I'm straight, married, Christian, and would have no problem alongside a gay man/woman in any capacity. Please just think of gays as everybody else. They're not going to assault you any more than a straight man would assault a woman. They're not different except that they prefer to share their lives with a member of the same gender. It's not all about sex. Are you only married to a woman so you can get busy?I didn't think so. When someone tells you about his wife, your mind doesn't go to sex. Just treat gays like everybody else, and you'll do fine. By the way, I used to be just like you. I'm not saying I'm now better than you, just that I know you can move forward. It helps knowing someone who's gay, but justthinking about how gays are really the same as the rest of us helps.
sailhounds2
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 : 12:45 a.m.
Sometimes news on AnnArbor.com is very sketchy. I get a little frustrated. But I want to express appreciation for clarifying the story about this protest. ALL media reports that I saw regarding this story lacked the background that you presented. I have been under the impression that the protesters handcuffed to the fence were protesting DADT because they are protesting gays in the military. There was no mention of getEQUAL. We all as Americans have an expectation to live our lives without the government telling us what we are allowed to do as long as we are not harming others. Hope that you will accept this in the spirit that I hope will be received. I can't say I'm all for getEQUAL but I do seek the truth when a news story presents itself. Had I not visited your web site I would still be under a false impression of what the protest in DC was about. I like to know what's going on and I respect everyone who has enough guts to demonstrate in public regardless of personal risk when our government is not listening, peacefully of course.
FreedomLover
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 11:24 p.m.
As happens often, the actions of a few spoil things for many. There are a few openly gay people who choose to expose there lifestyle in inappropriate ways. As a 20 year military veteran this is where I see the problem. I served with people who were gay and never new so nor cared because they were discrete and did their jobs well. However, when I was on alert duty for a week at a time living in a small facility with 100 other men and eventually women, an openly gay couple who decided to show affection in public would not have gone over well. As a straight guy I was not allowed to show affection to a woman in this situation. Granted few would do this but some would just because they could. When I first joined the military it was frowned upon to even hold hands with your spouse while in uniform and in public. Our politicians have always used the military as an instrument of social change. Gays openly serving is just another way to use the military to advance the political and social agendas of a minority group. Lets just leave the military for destroying things and killing the enemy.
Basic Bob
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 10:30 p.m.
Sorry, but I don't feel compelled to share my sexual orientation, religion, or other constitutionally protected rights with the people I work with. I can trust my coworkers without knowing these things, and I can be honest without revealing them to my coworkers and supervisors. I guarantee that if I chain myself to the White House fence to protest my rights, I will be arrested, too. That is equality under the law. Don't ask don't tell don't care
Ram
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 10:18 p.m.
voiceofreason brings up some very valid points.
David Briegel
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 10:01 p.m.
Homophobia is ignorance. Plain and simple. Get over it! There is an honor code in the military and then we ask people to violate their sacred oath by denying who they are. They are not the problem, we are! Ignorance is the problem. I served for 3 years including a crowded barracks through a long Alaskan winter and there was never a problem. Each of us were able to just be who we were. No problem whatsoever! Admiral Mullen is a LEADER! John McCain is an embarassment!!
voiceofreason
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.
I don't feel strongly on this issue one way or the other. However, I don't think many residents in a place like Ann Arbor are even capable of seeing this issue from the other side. In a community that is very anti-Military and very pro-gay rights, people are unable to see potential morale problems that may arise from making such a big deal of this. In the utopian society that Ann Arbor strives to be, everything is all about rainbows and gumdrops. The United States Military is far from utopia. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.
johnnya2
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.
@ Tigger. A reading of the executive powers does give the president to do what is needed for the country in a "time of war". The executive order will only last as long as he is president, and then the next president would need to continue or stop it. The president also has the Attorney General as part of his cabinet. The AG can easily say he thinks the law is unconstitutional, then force it out in court. The president is sworn to uphold the constitution. That takes priority over any law congress passes. The oath is clear UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
AAFish
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 7:28 p.m.
This whole DADT thing is such a crock. Why should people have to be dishonest about their sexuality? Back in the early '90s, when President Clinton advocated DADT, it may well have been the least-worst answer to this "problem." Our society was still in the process of transitioning toward acceptance of gays, in any venue, military or otherwise. It appears to me, now, that the transition, although still not complete, is far more advanced than it was then. So let's continue to move forward. There have been well-publicized instances of gays being discharged from the military, despite their much-needed skills (such as being able to speak fluent Arabic). Um, excuse me, folks, but doesn't this sort of defeat the objectives of the so-called "War on Terror?" (Which the right-wing, anti-gay crowd mostly seems to embrace.) Not that the Right should ever be expected to be rational... As far as the proximity of gays to straights in closely-spaced quarters goes, I submit, from personal experience, that it does not necessarily result in unwelcome advances on straights by gays. My best buddy in junior high and high school turned out to be gay. I say "turned out to be," because in the rather parochial Chicago suburb in which we grew up, gays were definitely unwelcome, and revealed their sexual orientation only at their peril. It took him a number of years to "come out," so to speak. In fact, he and I roomed together in college, and not once did I ever get a hint that he was gay. (Read -- he never tried to hit on me.) So -- to repeat -- this whole business of Gays in the Military is a contrived bunch of crap. Even Barry Goldwater (of whom I was never an admirer) said back in the 1980s that gays ought to be allowed to serve.
Edward R. Murrow's ghost
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 6:54 p.m.
kmgb: An executive order does not trump the law. Because this is legislation passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, it will take an act of Congress to rescind it. Let me be clear: I support the ending of DADT, but those who urge the president to ignore the law are asking him to mimic the character traits of the last occupant of the White House. Just because it is a righteous cause and one you support is no excuse for the president to ignore the law.
Edward R. Murrow's ghost
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 6:49 p.m.
Top Cat: You're not paying attention. The Chairman of the JCS so testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. And "Maverick" John McCain, who in 2000, said he would support if the suspension of DADT if the chiefs recommended it, told Adm. Mullen it was a bad idea. So much for living up to one's word.
nuseph
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 5:28 p.m.
@bunnyabbot By that logic, it's not gays that should be barred, but married heterosexuals.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 4:57 p.m.
I think part of the equation of letting openly gay people in the military is that it might effect housing situations, barracks, wanting partner benefits and partner housing etc. It opens the door for another financial strain on the military/gov't/the people.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 4:52 p.m.
the question is, if they knew the (well known) policy of DADT, than why did they join the military in the first place?
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 3:40 p.m.
I suspect that the main sexual-related morale problem in the military is actually sexual activity and not the nature of the sexual activity. The actual policy is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue". I suspect that both men and women acting "unprofessional" is the real problem, and this is a problem even with heterosexual men and women serving together. I don't believe that homosexuals are morally superior to or inherently more "professional" than heterosexuals, and it's possible the fact that men in the military live in close proximity with men and women with women might simply raise the risk of "unprofessional behavior" in the same way that men living in too close proximity with women would. I seriously doubt that this issue will ever receive an objective study due to the politically charged nature of it. The APA claims that the issue isn't a problem, but if it isn't then why aren't they advocating that men and women share the same locker rooms, showers, etc? Seems like that would make things more efficient if it weren't a problem.
JSA
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 3:26 p.m.
Three years in jail would be appropriate for chaining themselves to the fence.
kmgeb2000
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.
@tdw Don't you get it? Its a non-issue for the vast majority of people on the planet - men, women, straight or gay, red, yellow, white, black, brown, etc. To answer your original question, in my youth, when speaking with the Marine recruter I did NOT ask the question would there be gays serving with me if I served, nor did I care.
tdw
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 3:06 p.m.
Ok last post I was not trolling.Look at my first question Other posters started pilling on me
KarenH
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 3:04 p.m.
@tdw - First you say that it's not about straight men being worried about being hit on by gay men, and now you say that straight men WOULD be afraid of being hit on by gay men. I also would not want to live with a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons, but if I joined the military I would realize that I don't get that choice. And I shouldn't get that choice. If a gay man sexually harasses a straight man he should be dealt with in the same manner in which a straight man who harasses a woman is, or a straight man harassing a gay man or woman which is certainly more realistic a possibility than a gay man harassing anyone. It's clear you have a certain viewpoint about this, and feel strongly that gay people should not have the right to serve our country. Therefore, I don't think I'll respond to anything else you say.
tdw
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:57 p.m.
BTW I see no reason why this story is also in the crime section
Awakened
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:33 p.m.
@TDW I served at the begging of the volunteer army long before Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There were guys in my unit that everyone knoew were gay. No one cared. I don't suspect it would change that much. These were the same arguements against desgregating the army in 1949. Remember all the problems from history class? No? Well that is because there were no wide spread problems. Individual incidents will be controlled if you have effective leaders. Our military has the most effective leadership, from the ground up, of any organization in the world. Lets get this overwith. BTW- Is there a place to donate for bail?
Jake C
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:15 p.m.
I've heard stories from dozens of soldiers who all seem to say the same thing: that the vast majority of our armed forces really don't care about the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers as long as they are competent and trustworthy individuals. Unfortunately, the whole basis of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is that gay people must lie, which undermines the whole "Trustworthy" concept. And honestly, any gay person who is brave enough to join the military knowing that they could be 'outed' and at any time is a hero in my book. I can't even imagine how difficult it is for gay women, who've got it even worse than gay men. Not only do women in the military still have to prove themselves worthy of serving alongside men, they also have to deal with potentially harassing sexual advances from men. And along with that comes the worry that any time they turn a man down they might be suspected of being gay, whether or not they actually are.
kmgeb2000
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
"The Obama administration is studying how best to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military." This has to be the best line so far. How about an simple Executive Order - thou shall not ban entrance to or military service based on sexual orientation. Does not require much thought beyond that. See in the military the Commander-in-Chief gives a direct order and EVERYONE beneath the Commander-in-Chief is required to follow the order to the letter, otherwise its Leavenworth. No discussion needed, or even allowed as that's the point of a order. PS, being a heterosexual man with a gay cousin who served in Gulf War I, it does not make much sense to me. My cousin also spoke at least six languages including Arabic and Russian so I suspect having him around was more important when fighting an Arabic speaking country than being gay.
Freemind42
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:10 p.m.
@tdw, a "pro-gay" way of thinking? If someone can't be around another person just because they're homosexuals it seems to me that the real problem lies not with the homosexual, but the person who has the problem with the homosexual. Also, your logic about putting others at risk is completely nonsensical.
KarenH
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.
@tdw - Your question is a fine example of why this bigotry is allowed to continue. If I joined the military, I would not be putting any female soldiers at risk, simply because I'm gay. I've lived in close quarters with MANY straight women, and never been a threat to any of them. If you don't know any straight men who would serve with gay men simply because they are gay, then you only know ignorant or homophobic straight men. The only way to dispel this ignorance is to end this policy. Gay men and women are ALREADY SERVING IN THE MILITARY. And gay men and women are integrated successfully in every country where they do have an open and equal policy. This is not a "pro-gay" way of thinking. This is a fair and equal and humane way of thinking.
nuseph
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 2:03 p.m.
Good for Mara and her cohorts. DADT is a policy that sets people up to fail. Repressing sexual identity doesn't make anyone a better soldier; if anything it will prove more mentally exhausting and put the soldier and his/her fellow soldiers at risk.
tdw
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:58 p.m.
@KarenH there's a differance there's a diffrence between accepting a job and putting your self ( volunteering )in a situation where you have to live with in close quarters with someone.The reason is that I don't know any straight men who would choose to put themselves in that situation.Thats why I would ask. And just to even ask me why I would ask shows arrogance and intolerance because someone just does not blindly go along with with the pro-gay way of thinking. I was asking a ligitimate question
PiHi91
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.
I thought the military was all about being an AMERICAN CITIZEN! I could care less about what you do behind closed doors. To be honest is it really any of my business? NOT!!!
angela
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.
bruceae - you are backwards and sound ignorant. perhaps she thought serving her country was something bigger than herself. besides, she is paying the loans, right? she didn't do it to get a free education.
Top Cat
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:51 p.m.
The sole question is how does the removal of DADT make our military a more effective fighting force and improve the security of the American people? If I saw the Joint Chiefs advocating this change, I would be all for it. I don't see that.
KarenH
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.
Men and women are being kicked out of the military even when they "don't tell" anything. One colleague with an agenda, or even an outsider who is homophobic, can send a note to a commanding officer that a soldier is gay, or that they have a suspicion that the soldier is gay, and they will investigate and dismiss that soldier. No one is "declaring their sexuality" during enlistment. These soldiers are fighting to defend US and they are losing their pensions and their promises of post-military educational compensation, such as is the case with Boyd. After serving OUR COUNTRY. It's absolutely shameful that we continue to allow this. We need people like this who are willing to stand up for us all. This is a discriminatory policy, period, and needs to be ended. Anyone who defends it doesn't really understand what equality means.
djm12652
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
If I openly stated that I was heterosexual during an interview to join the military, the odds are that I wouldn't be accepted. I personally don't feel that sexual orientation should be an issue when joining the military, but then again, I keep my sexual identity strictly private, as should everyone else...but when will people begin to stand up for the rights of overweight people that want to join the military, let's face it, everybody has some type of bigotry in them...keep your private life private...I can't imagine going into any job interview and declaring my sexuality...
bruceae
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
So she signs up for ROTC and apparently didn't know what the policy was then? Then once she has free loaded off the program for a while she all of a sudden gets "a sense of integrity"? Rather than arresting them and giving the show they wanted for the media they should have just left them chained to the fence.
xmo
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
This Protest was worthless because Demcrats run the Government and they do not listen to the people! Look at National Health Care and the Tea Party People, Democrats Voted for it even though the Millions of People were against it. So, what are a few Americans handcuffed to a fence going to prove?
Freemind42
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.
@tdw, it won't change the rate of straight people who will enlist. That is a complete non sequitor. The issue has nothing to do with gay people and everything to do with homophobic people unable to deal with the reality of the world around them. This is the same argument that was made when there was debate about women and other minorities being able to join the armed forces and we can all agree that none of that had any negative impact on enlistment rates.
KarenH
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
@Wagoo - The protest is at the White House because it is Obama who made the promise to end DADT and it is the White House who is delaying any progress on that by waiting for the Pentagon study to be released in December. Obama himself told activists during an HRC event to keep pressure on him. That's what these activists are doing. And it looks like it's working, at least as far as getting some much needed attention. Soldiers are losing their jobs and their pensions EVERY DAY, just because of who they are, while we wait for this discriminatory policy to be repealed.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:25 p.m.
I don't think being open means making passes at straight men. It simply means you don't worry about losing your job if you want to place a picture of your significant other on your desk, or a superior officer sees you holding hands with your significant other while you're off the base enjoying a night off. Generally, I don't like protests where the purpose of the protest is to get arrested. It makes me less sympathetic to a cause. But I do support this cause - we should not discriminate based solely on who a person chooses to love any more than we should discriminate based on skin color or what imaginary supreme being they choose to worship.
KarenH
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.
@tdw - Would you not accept a job if you heard that gay people worked in the same office? Why would you even ask this question?
tdw
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
Ok I have a honest question so don't pile on me here folks. My question is how many straight men will join when Gays are allowed to be open? I'd prefer to hear from straight men ( be honest )
LAEL
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.
I applaud Mara Boyd for speaking out. I look forward to the day when no one has to lie about their sexual orientation to serve in our country's armed forces. This bigotry against gays not only hurts the individuals like Boyd, it also hurts our armed forces by reducing the pool or talented and dedicated people who might otherwise choose to serve, and it also diminishes us as a nation.
a2grateful
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.
Agree with GetEQUAL: let's get equal rights for gays... end the discrimination now!
KarenH
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.
I am so proud of her, and of Lt. Dan Choi, and the other brave men and women standing up for equality for all Americans. And I am fully behind the recent efforts from the organization GetEqual. I'm tired of waiting for my rights. We all should be tired of waiting for all Americans to be treated equally. This protest is necessary NOW because the repeal of DADT needs to be in the Defense Appropriations bill now. Obama IS dragging his feet on this issue, especially after promising in two recent speeches that he intended to repeal DADT THIS YEAR. Yet, conflicting with that promise is his intention to wait until after a Pentagon study that is underway related to the repeal of DADT is completed, which is not due until December 1st. (See: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14925042) That promise and that plan are in direct conflict with each other. We must have DADT repealed this year or we may have to wait indefinitely longer if the mid-term elections tip Congress out of our favor.