Washington State Representative Maureen Walsh recently filmed a PSA in favor of marriage equality in the Evergreen State. Walsh, a third-term Republican Representative, is advocating for the passage of Referendum 74, which would allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington.

In the 30-second PSA, Walsh said the issue of marriage equality was a "question of fundamental fairness" and that it was not her, or anyone else's, place to stop a couple from benefiting in the "incredible bond of marriage."

"As a Republican, I don't believe the government should tell anyone who they can or cannot marry," Walsh added.

Walsh made headlines back in February after stunning her party with her bipartisan support for marriage equality. In her heartfelt speech in the Legislature, she spoke about her own daughter, who is a lesbian, and her desire to one day throw her a wedding. 

"I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a 'domestic partnership,'" Walsh said in her speech.

Meanwhile, former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum made a stop in Spokane, Wash. on Tuesday to campaign against the referendum. 

But support for marriage equality is strong heading into November, as indicated by a recent poll out of Washington that shows a 15-point lead between those in favor of passing the referendum and those who oppose it. 

Washington is one of four states in the country that will vote on marriage equality this November.

Connecticut Post

Richard Fourtin, Jr. will walk free after the State Supreme Court overturned his sexual assault conviction.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has thrown out the sexual assault conviction of a man found guilty of attacking a severely handicapped woman because there was no evidence that the woman communicated her refusal.

The man, Richard Fourtin Jr., was accused of sexual assault in 2005, and was found guilty in 2008 of attempted second-degree and fourth-degree sexual assault. He was sentenced to six years in prison.

But now Fourtin will go free because, in a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that there was no evidence that the alleged victim communicated to her attacker that she did not want to have sex:

"(W)e, like the Appellate Court, 'are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.'"

The alleged victim has severe cerebral palsy and, according to court documents, is not able to verbally communicate. During her initial court appearance, the woman testified by pointing at a board printed with the words "yes" and "no." 

But defense lawyers argued that the woman could have communicated nonverbally by kicking, biting or groaning.

"We are incredibly disappointed with the State Supreme Court's decision in the Fourtin case," Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, said in a statement. "The court's interpretation of what it means to be 'physically helpless' jeopardizes the safety of people with disabilities."

According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network), states individually define who has the mental and legal capacity to consent. RAINN also adds, "Just because you didn't resist physically doesn't mean it wasn't rape," and lack of consent "can be implied from the circumstances"—such as a mental defect.

By overturning this conviction, it sends a message that those with disabilities must work extra hard to fight back in cases where simply saying "no" is not an option. Fourtin's freedom is a sign that more people buy into the "legitimate rape" theory than we'd like to hope, and it's a shame that he will be a free man while the woman continues to live in her own prison of silence.

Local Wisconsin news anchor Jennifer Livingston spoke out against bullying on air after receiving a harsh email concerning her appearance.

Livingston, a reporter and anchor at News 8 in LaCrosse, Wisconsin since the late '90s, took a few minutes on Tuesday morning to respond to an email from Kenneth W. Krause, a male viewer, that criticized her weight. The email was posted on Facebook by her husband, News 8 anchor Mike Thompson:

Hi Jennifer,

It's unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn't improved for many years. Surely you don't consider yourself a suitable example for this community's young people, girls in particular. Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping you'll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.

Livingston read the letter on air, and said she initially tried to laugh off the letter, but after reading the overwhelming response on her husband's Facebook page, she decided to address the issue.

"The truth is: I am overweight," Livingston said. "You can call me fat, and yes, even obese on a doctor's chart. But to the person who wrote me that letter, do you think I don’t know that? That your cruel words are pointing out something that I don’t see? You don't know me...so you know nothing about me but what you see on the outside, and I am much more than a number on a scale."

The video of Livingston's response went viral Tuesday morning. Thousands online responded in comment sections on the News 8 website, YouTube, and other sites where the video was posted in support of Livingston, and even Ellen DeGeneres tweeted: "What a powerful message against bullying. @News8Jennifer, I would love to meet you in person."

News 8 invited Krause on air to respond, but he declined and instead sent a statement to the station:

"Given this country's present epidemic of obesity and the many truly horrible diseases related thereto, and considering Jennifer Livingston's fortuitous position in the community, I hope she will finally take advantage of a rare and golden opportunity to influence the health and psychological well-being of Coulee Region children by transforming herself for all of her viewers to see over the next year, and, to that end, I would be absolutely pleased to offer Jennifer any advice or support she would be willing to accept."

Livingston ended her editorial comment with a reminder to the public that October is National Bullying Prevention Month, and encouraged her viewers to stand up to bullies: "To all of the children out there who feel lost, who are struggling with your weight, with the color of your skin, your sexual preference, your disability, even the acne on your face—listen to me right now: do not let your self-worth be defined by bullies. Learn from my experience—that the cruel words of one are nothing compared to the shouts of many."

Gail Burton / AP

Baltimore Ravens center Matt Birk (L) during drills at a July NFL football training camp. Birk recently spoke out against marriage equality.

Baltimore Ravens center Matt Birk penned an op-ed this past weekend for the Minneapolis Star Tribune condemning same-sex marriage.

"I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing," Birk wrote.

His piece goes on to say that "marriage is in trouble right now" for many reasons, and America has a duty to "preserve and promote a healthy, authentic pro-marriage culture." 

Birk encouraged all Americans to engage in the debate over marriage equality with civility and respect, but added that he was against redefining marriage:

"Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children—the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect that broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both."

He also adds that his choice to speak out against same-sex marriage is "not meant as an offense to any person or group" and that "there is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman."

Birk's piece comes on the heels of his teammate Brendon Ayanbadejo's outspoken support for marriage equality. Ayanbadejo has long been an advocate for marriage equality and was recently thrust into the spotlight when a Maryland State delegate sent a letter to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti condemning the Ravens linebacker for making such a public endorsement. The delegate later backed down on his attacks and acknowledged Ayanbadejo's right to free speech.

Ayanbadejo told MSNBC's Thomas Roberts earlier this month that he'd received an overwhelming amount of support, including support from within the NFL community. In a vitriolic letter to the Maryland delegate who condemned Ayanbadejo and asked the Ravens to silence him, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe wrote,

"You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?"

Kluwe also responded to Birk in the Pioneer Press on Monday in an open letter that addressed each of Birk's concerns. He criticized Birk's unwillingness to accept a redefinition of marriage and argued that marriage has already been redefined over the years:

"Marriage used to be one man and multiple women. Marriage used to be a way to exchange property between two families. Marriage used to be between brother and sister to keep the royal bloodline pure. Marriage used to be between children. Marriage used to be only for people that were the same skin color. Marriage used to be a lot of things, many of them oppressive towards women and minorities. I think I’d rather marriage be between two people that love each other and are committed to each other no matter what combination of fleshy bits are hanging off their bodies; not a reality TV show."

Kluwe also added that the only impact same-sex marriage would have on the next generation would be on those who are gay and cannot get married, and that he planned to commit himself to tearing down those barriers that stopped people from marrying the ones they love.

Maryland is one of the four states to vote this November on same-sex marriage. See Melissa's recent discussion about down-ballot issues after the jump.

Tom Pennington / Getty Images

A same-sex couple in Dallas, Tx. share a kiss outside a Chick-fil-A in protest of the restaurant's stance on same-sex marriage.

Austin has become the first city in Texas to officially support marriage equality in the Lone Star State. 

This morning, the Austin City Council unanimously adopted a formal resolution "declaring the City Councils intent to support marriage equality in the State of Texas." The resolution was brought to the City Council after Equality Texas submitted a petition with over 1,800 signatures.

In a statement released Wednesday, Equality Texas argued that the passage of this resolution would send a message to the state and the country that Austin stands for equality.

The Council resolution recognizes that marriage is a powerful and important affirmation of love and commitment and a source of social support and recognition. Passage of this resolution will send the message to state and national leaders that Austin is a community that values equality for all its citizens. The resolution will also send the message that the City of Austin believes all couples in loving and committed relationships should be given the opportunity to create stronger and more successful families through civil marriage.

Austin is already known as Texas' most progressive city, and has been associated with pro-marriage equality stances in the past. In 2005, when Texas voters amended the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, Travis County (in which Austin sits) was the only county to oppose the amendment.

Although Texas is one of the 31 states with constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between a man and a woman, there have been challenges in recent history to the state's law. In 2009 during a divorce trial between two gay Texans married in Massachusetts, a Texas judge ruled the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, clearing the way for the two men to divorce and opening up other channels for advocates to challenge the ban. The following year, a Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the ruling and said the ban did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Last year, a Third Court of Appeals in Austin issued another conflicting ruling that allowed a same-sex couple to divorce.

It is probably unlikely that the entire state of Texas will reverse its constitutional amendment anytime soon, considering the Texas Republican Party's strong hold on the state's leadership as well as their platform that includes numerous anti-equality points. But the resolution out of Austin, the capital of Texas and the state's fourth most populous city, is a huge symbolic step toward the progress that could come as the country's attitude slowly shifts in its view on marriage equality. A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that the majority of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage, 51% to 41%, and the gap between support/opposition is only widening (in July, the same poll found 46% support marriage equality as opposed to 44% who don't.) 

A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll in February found that three in five Texas voters supported some form of legal partner status for same-sex couples, with 31% in favor of same-sex marriage and 29% in favor of civil unions.

John Moore / Getty Images

French President François Hollande addresses the 67th UN General Assembly on September 25, 2012 in New York City.

French President François Hollande yesterday called on the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide, joining France in that effort.

Hollande spoke before the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday and told the group that his country intended to be the leader in the global fight for "universal human freedoms":

France will continue to engage in all these struggles: for the abolition of the death penalty, for women's rights to equality and dignity, for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality, which should not be recognised as a crime but, on the contrary, recognized as a [sexual] orientation.

Hollande's speech touched on an issue rarely discussed among the U.N., and Hollande's appeal marks the first time a head of state has spoken out about homosexuality at the General Assembly. In many areas of the world, homosexuality is still considered illegal, with punishments ranging from prison to death.

France has traditionally been known to be liberal on LGBT rights. Gay and lesbian individuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, and transsexual individuals are allowed to change their legal sex. Same-sex marriage, however, is not recognized in the country. But Reuters reported in June that under France's new Socialist government, same-sex marriage and adoption for same-sex couples could become legal.

A pro-marriage equality ad airing in Washington State deserves a "Pants on Fire" Award, according to anti-marriage equality organization Preserve Marriage Washington. The group published a press release on Tuesday blasting a new television ad that began airing last week, and said that it was "not an accurate depiction of the law" in Washington.

The ad in question was produced by Washington United for Marriage, which is currently lobbying for the passage of R-74. The referendum, which will be voted on this November, would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. 

In the ad, a mother tells the story of her daughter and her daughter's partner who was diagnosed with brain cancer. "One night in the hospital Cheryl had a seizure," the mother in the ad says. "She was asking for Sarah and no one called. Only marriage guarantees that all couples can be there for each other when it really matters."

Preserve Marriage Washington shot back at the ad, calling it "melodramatic" and says that its claims are false because the state's domestic partnership law allowed hospital visitation and other rights for same-sex couples. 

But as Think Progress points out, Washington's "everything but marriage" law doesn't guarantee equal rights:

The anti-equality group makes the case that Washington’s “everything but marriage” law, approved in 2009, created hospital visitation protections for domestic partners, but that doesn’t mean the protections are guaranteed in each situation. What the law says and how a hospital reacts in an emergency will not necessarily be the same, because domestic partnerships are simply not recognized with the same familiarity and respect as marriages.

ThinkProgress points out New Jersey as an example, and says that despite adopting civil unions, a commission found that same-sex couples were still not treated as equals.

Even if, given enough time, civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they are “not good enough” to warrant true equality.

Even if the "everything but marriage" law provided hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples, that goes beyond the point of legalizing same-sex marriage. The point of allowing marriage equality is to allow all people the right to marry whomever they love, and not parading "separate but equal" laws around as an answer for true equality and civil rights.

Melissa's Saturday segment on down-ballot initiatives being voted upon in November -- including marriage equality in Washington State -- is below.

The Sunlight Foundation

We knew super-PACs were spending a lot of money in this campaign season -- in the presidential race, and in down-the-ballot races. But this much?

About 78% of campaign spending comes from super-PACs, a new study from the Sunlight Foundation found this week.  Of the $465 million reportedly spent by Sunday evening in the 2012 campaign cycle, $365 million can be attributed to the Citizens United effect, and the majority of that money was spent on local races and on negative campaigning. 

This may not come as news to many who have grown increasingly aware of the role that "dirty, angry money" now plays in politics, but it's important to note how fast this business of outside campaign spending has grown: in 2010, only about 40% of spending came from outside groups. 

The Sunlight Foundation's Following the Unlimited Money site tracks this out-of-hand spending by states, races, candidates, and it's worth checking out for the shock value. Italics mine:

• $363.2 million was spent on negative ads against a candidate; $99.6 million was spent in support of a candidate.
• The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future spent made more than double the independent expenditures and contributions than the pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action.
• Opposing expenditures against President Obama top more than $130 million; opposing expenditures against Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney are about $50 million.
• Supporting expenditures for Obama amount to about $6.5 million, while supporting expenditures for Romney total about $15.7 million.

Those numbers are just a few related to the presidential race, but what's happening in local House and Senate races is important, as well. Senate control is up for grabs this year -- as we noted in last week's "Go Figure," only so it's unsurprising that the top 12 races influenced by outside spending right now (not including the presidential race) are all Senate races.

Last month, the President addressed the question of super-PACs on Reddit and said the flood of anonymous money influencing politics is a problem. "They fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens," Obama wrote. 

What does Romney think of all this? Well, he's for limiting campaign contributions -- as long as they're coming from teachers' unions. John Nichols in The Nation reported what the GOP nominee said during an appearance at NBC's Education Nation earlier this week:

America’s primary proponent of big money in politics now says that he wants to silence K-12 teachers who pool their resources in order to defend public education for kids whose parents might not be wealthy enough to pay the $39,000 a year it costs to send them to the elite Cranbrook Schools attended by young Willard Mitt.

“We simply can’t have a setting where the teachers unions are able to contribute tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of politicians and then those politicians, when elected, stand across from them at the bargaining table, supposedly to represent the interest of the kids. I think it’s a mistake,” the Republican nominee for president of 53 percent of the United States said during an appearance Tuesday with NBC’s Education Nation. “I think we’ve got to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns. It’s the wrong way for us to go.”

For Congress' part, Democrats introduced the DISCLOSE Act in 2010 in response to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. DISCLOSE promotes transparency and gives the public access to information regarding political contributions and campaign expenditures. Naturally, in July, Senate Republicans blocked the bill from advancing.

See Melissa's Saturday "Go Figure" on the aforementioned down-ballot races, and subsequent discussion, after the jump. Below, thanks to a tip on our Facebook page from viewer Tony Anderson, you'll find last night's coverage on "The Ed Show" of Romney's Education Nation appearance, adding depth to the report we reference earlier.

J.D. Pooley / AP

Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan gives a thumbs up to supporters at the Veterans Memorial Civic & Convention Center in Lima, Ohio on Monday, Sept. 24.

The Romney-Ryan ticket continues to shake the Etch-A-Sketch on their campaign—first on health care, and now on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." On Sunday, Rep. Paul Ryan told a local news station in Florida that reinstating DADT "would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves."

"Now that it's done, we should not reverse it," Ryan said. 

This statement is a reversal for Ryan, who originally voted against the DADT repeal that was signed by President Obama in December 2010. The policy officially ended the following year in September 2011. 

Mitt Romney has also spoken publicly against reinstating DADT, telling an Iowa editorial board last December that DADT was a distraction.

"We ought to be talking about the economy and jobs," Romney said, "but given the fact you are insistent, the answer is I believe 'don't ask, don't tell' should have been kept in place until conflict was over."

Ryan echoed these sentiments on Sunday by saying his friends in the military agreed that the DADT repeal was premature, but added, "I think this issue is past us. It's done. And, I think we need to move on."

A study released earlier this month concluded that the repeal had no negative impact on the military or its readiness. 

It's nice to hear Romney and Ryan are "moving on" from the issue, but the Republican Party doesn't seem ready to let go of the issue quite yet. Several points in its platform call for a reversal of LGBT rights, and there are still many Republicans who are in favor of reinstating DADT, which begs the question: Would a Romney-Ryan administration go with its instincts and allow the DADT repeal to stay, or would they let the GOP dictate every step along the path toward equality?

Hundreds of protesters gathered in parks around New York City early Monday morning to celebrate the one-year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street.

Protesters, ranging from children to grandparents, met in four different "zones" surrounding the New York Stock Exchange to protest inequality and corporate greed. At Zuccotti Park, the original site of the Occupy camp, protesters met at 7 a.m. to discuss nonviolent action and resistance as many employees and executives began their work day.

"There is nothing negative about this," Sergio Uzurian, 26 from Buffalo, N.Y., said about the gathering. "This is for the people."

As the crowds gathered around lower Manhattan, groups of NYPD officers stationed themselves in front of banks and along the streets, and directed traffic and Wall St. employees around the protesters. Police set up barricades around Wall St. and the Stock Exchange, and only let people through who could show employee IDs. 

Organizers handed out maps in the morning of the various meeting places, but despite the pre-planned actions for the day, the morning was chaotic. NYPD set up barricades to keep protesters from crossing certain streets, and people were often separated from their zone groups as they sought new ways to access Wall St. 

Cops began arresting protesters just before 8 a.m. on Pine St., and arrests continued through the morning as protesters marched to Bowling Green park—the location of the iconic Charging Bull sculpture. The bull, which was under heavy police guard, has been off-limits to tourists since last year's Occupy protests.

Traci Lee | msnbc.com

Police officers block the Charging Bull sculpture at Bowling Green Park near Wall Street in New York City on September 17, 2012.

Many of the protesters participating in the Monday demonstrations have been a part of Occupy movements—from New York to Philadelphia to Hartford—since last fall. Daniel Valdes, 27, has been with Occupy since last year, and he believes the one-year anniversary events will re-energize the fight and bring attention to the dissatisfaction Americans feel about the government and politics. 

"The political system shut us out," Valdes said. "It's a circus at this point."

Also among the protesters were new faces to Occupy. Nineteen-year-old Joseph Califano, an economics student at Sarah Lawrence College, arrived at Monday's Occupy protest (his first) with a sign that read, "Why develop empathy, when you could be making $350,000+ a year running a Ponzi scheme?"

Traci Lee | msnbc.com

Two Occupy protesters don Obama and Romney masks in New York City during the one-year anniversary protest on September 17, 2012.

"I hope income inequality becomes a part of the national conversation," Califano said.

By the afternoon, NYPD reported nearly 150 arrests. Along with an increased police presence, National Lawyers Guild representatives and a large number of journalists were also among those present throughout the protest.

Events are planned through Monday night, when protesters plan to re-occupy Zuccotti Park. The protest wraps up a weekend of anniversary celebrations, but many protesters believe Occupy will continue to grow moving forward. 

"We have to keep going," Veterans for Peace's Crystal Zevon said. "I feel like I've lived my life, but I don't know that my grandsons will be able to live theirs if things don't change fast."

Kisuk Cha

A Hooters in Queens is facing a racial discrimination lawsuit after a Korean-American customer received a receipt containing a racial slur.

The New York Times reported yesterday:

In early July, Kisuk Cha and his girlfriend, both Korean immigrants, walked into a Hooters in Fresh Meadows and ordered buffalo shrimp and chicken wings to go. After they placed their order, they noticed their server and another employee standing at the computer giggling and “gawking at them,” according to the lawsuit.

When the server handed them their receipt, Mr. Cha and his girlfriend saw that in the space reserved for the customer’s name, the cashier had typed "chinx."

The Hooters employee responsible for the anti-Asian slur has reportedly resigned, and the restaurant reviewed months of receipts to check for other incidents, though none were found. 

"That's not what we're all about, especially here in New York City, Queens County, the most diverse place int he world," Cha's attorney Daniel Baek told a local CBS affiliate.

CBS also reports that the restaurant chain is fighting back. Hooters attorney Edward McCabe acknowledged the incident as an isolated matter and said that it's not the business' responsibility when individual employees act out—a defense that Baek and his client refute: 

"The law is very clear, you can hate Asians all you want, but the moment one walks into your place of business, he or she is entitled to equal treatment and protection. That’s been violated here," Baek told 1010 WINS’ Aaron Gerberg. "My client threw away his food after he saw the receipt — very disgusted. And ever since then, he did not go back to any national chain store whatsoever. He doesn’t want to go back to Hooters again."

There are two ways to look at this: as an overreaction on Cha's part, or as Cha standing up for himself and on the behalf of so many Asian-Americans who have endured discrimination.

I choose the latter. I choose the latter because anti-Asian rhetoric is too commonly accepted in this country. This incident is just one of many in recent memory. Remember Michigan Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra's 'Debbie Spend-it-Now' ad? Remember when last December, two Asian students in Irvine, California went to a Chick-fil-A where they received receipts that read "Ching" and "Chong" in place of their names. Remember last January when a 24-year-old Asian woman in New York City discovered her Papa John's receipt identified her as "lady chinky eyes"?

These micro-aggressions matter. They can lead to violence—like 30 years ago in the killing of Vincent Chin, or last year when Pvt. Danny Chen took his life. Acts of racism are more than just "frivolous cases," as McCabe remarked in defense of Hooters. Verbal assaults are all-too often the gateway to serious physical manifestations of hate.   

Evan Vucci/AP

Lawmakers and supporters look on as President Barack Obama signs "don't ask, don't tell" repeal legislation that would allow gays to serve openly in the military, Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2010

It's been nearly one year since the Obama administration's repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and a new study released today by the Palm Center shows that there has been no negative impact on the military or its readiness.

The Palm Center, a think tank that is part of the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, conducted interviews over the last six months with veterans, active-duty service members, and advocates who've both supported and opposed DADT and its repeal. The study, titled "One Year Out," found that the "repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale."

The study ultimately disproves many of the points argued by those who openly opposed the DADT repeal. Col. Dave Bedey, a retired senior member of the faculty at the United States Military Academy at West Point, told The Washington Post in 2010 that "the risk that open service by homosexuals poses to unit cohesion and, more importantly, to the stability of the larger military community that supports those units." Rep. Todd Akin, a Missouri Senate candidate now infamous for his comments on "legitimate rape," also argued in 2010 on the House floor that repealing DADT would affect recruitment, morale, and cohesion. 

But the Palm Center's study revealed that military recruitment and retention was unaffected by the repeal of DADT, and that the repeal produced positive effects for gay service members who were able "to resolve disputes around harassment and bias in ways that were not possible prior to repeal." It is also noted that a sudden wave of violence, physical abuse, or assaults did not occur following the repeal. 

In May, the U.S. Department of Defense released a report that showed the DADT repeal was a success, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted that the repeal had no impact on morale, unit cohesion, or military readiness.

"Before the repeal of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,' you faithfully served your country with professionalism and courage. And just like your fellow service members, you put your country before yourself," Panetta said in a video message in June to LGBT service members. "And now, after repeal, you can be proud of serving your country, and be proud of who you are when in uniform."

In an interview today with POLITICO, Aaron Belkin, the lead author on the Palm Center's study, said that it was important to know if DADT was working or not because, during the Republican primaries earlier this year, none of the candidates expressed support for the repeal.

The Republican Party's platform also implies it would re-implement DADT through an "objective and open-minded review of the current Administration's management of military personnel policies" and "correct" those problems. However, a Romney campaign spokesperson told the Huffington Post that Mitt Romney stands by his previous statement about his position and that he has no plans on reversing the repeal "at this stage."