What’s that? You have some crazy idea that President Obama has done nothing for gays? Sure, he hasn’t pushed for marriage equality, he has no tangible plans to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he’s done nothing to provide same-sex partner health care benefits, he hasn’t voiced support for ending bans on gay adoption, and he has no words to share on yesterday’s victory in Maine, but does that mean he’s just sitting around doing nothing for us queers?
Of course not!
You see, he was kind enough to invite the leaders of gay rights organizations over the White House for tea. And to “plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.'” The Times says the White House is “aware of the discontent” from the gay community over Obama’s seemingly turning his back to it. (Obama, however, wasn’t at the meeting, but deputy chief of staff Jim Messina was.)
So it’s great to hear from HRC exec director Joe Solmonese, who was at the White House on Monday, that the Obama administration does “have a vision. They have a plan.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Well! That better be good enough for all of you for another 100 days!
Hearing that Joe was at the White House on Monday and among those privy to Obama’s gay agenda, we quickly hopped over to HRC.org and HRCBackStory.org to see what details of this plan we could find out. What shocking details would we find? Deadlines in place? Strategy pointers? Well, there was none of that. Not a single mention of anything Obama’s team told Joe they were going to do. But they did have a lot of applause to hand out.
Dabq
Ah, but, if he does, who will this site have to bash every couple of hours a day???? Obama seems to be gold for this site and its anti-Obama posters, LMAO!
Lee
Joe Solmonese…From the people who brought you 45 states with bans on ANY kind of legal recognition for gay relationships. From the people who brought you 30 states with no laws to prevent gays from being denied a job or from being fired simply for being gay. From the people who pay him $300,000+ a year. From the people who spend around $6 MILLION a year just to open the doors on their castle with their own flag flying, note not the rainbow flag. From the people who…well, you know.
jason
Joe Solomonese may be a tool designed to keep us gays on the side of the Democrats. Message to Joe: our patience is wearing thin. We will rebel against the gay elite if you simply fold for the sake of politics.
CTC
The reason we haven’t gotten anywhere is that we have forsaken strategy for the sake of speaking our minds. Speakins our minds great for a blog, but I’d rather Obama build up some allies and get some national change in 5 or 6 years than make a lot of enemies now and lose a bid for re-election because the fearmongers can rally up the anti-gay vote again like they did in 2004.
Lee
Sorry, I almost forgot.
Obama Inc. HAD a plan, at least to overturn DADT, as outlined by Hisself in November of 2007 [emphasis mine]:
“America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS LEADERSHIP. As President, I will WORK WITH CONGRESS and PLACE THE WEIGHT OF MY ADMINISTRATION BEHIND enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination THE OFFICIAL POLICY of the U.S. military. I WILL TASK THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND THE SENIOR COMMAND STRUCTURE IN EVERY BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES with developing an ACTION PLAN for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I WILL DIRECT MY SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE AND HOMELAND SECURITY TO DEVELOP procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. IT WILL START WHEN I TAKE OFFICE.”
Sounds exactly what’s needed. Can we vote for that guy?
Wait. We already did.
Oaklander
Well, we got tea. Isn’t that enough? PLUS.. Obama is not Bush, and he is Black, so that should shut us up, right?
xhavie
why he has to do something, are we that special? after 100 days u pretend him walking at the San Francisco Pride?
People dont be to selfish please.
Oaklander
@xhavie:
How very selfish of me to want civil liberties, freedom from getting fired or denied a mortgage because I am gay. How very selfish of me to worry about my partner being thrown into poverty if I die before him. I am one selfish fuck, you got that right.
And how selfish of me to call the progressive community on their shit for having chosen Obama over Clinton, saying “he wont play politics and appease the Right Wing the way she would”, while they tell me to cool my jets and understand the need to build alliances before seeking equal rights. I am one selfish ignorant fuck, that is for sure.
And how selfish of me to note Obama’s silence on anti-gay rhetoric and legislative assaults to my civil rights. How selfish of me to not work to ‘rebuild America’ even though I don’t get an equal stake in it.
rigs
I’ll give it a year before really complaining, or until 2010 elections, beacuse if they miss their chance with this supermarjority, I know it really won’t happen. until now I remain optimistic, but not expecting much…
Landon Bryce
The New York Times article was disappointing because it did not address the changes in the website last week or the censorship of Gene Robinson at the inauguration.
Tobias Wolff would have a terrible time getting laid if he were interested in real sex rather than just masturbating to pictures of Obama. What a self-hating tool he is.
I hope one of the gay leaders at that meeting said that the secrecy of the plan makes it unacceptable. This president has yet to step up to the plate and be a role model for the country in talking with and about GLBT people in a respectful and honest way. That is his failure where we are concerned.
Sam
Today, on the subway into Manhattan from Brooklyn, I overheard an African-American woman talking to her friends about the white guys at her office, who are critical of Obama for not having made more progress. I loved when she said this:
“I just want to say ‘You guys have been screwing it up for 200 years. Obama’s gonna need more than three months to fix it.'”
So, from me and my neighbor on the train: This has been screwed up for 200 years. He’s gonna need more than three months to fix it.
JohnV
Why can’t people “get it” that to make something happen, you can’t sit and wait and you can’t be afraid of the backlash.
So what if there is a backlash?
Sit and wait = no movement on civil rights.
Being afraid of the backlash = no movement on civil rights.
The only chance for movement is to apply pressure (remember your physics class).
Wayne
So that line about being a “fierce advocate” for gays and lesbians was just a political pleasantries? A lie, perhaps? Or did he just “Change” his mind? (at least I didn’t use the term “thrown under the bus”).
Alec
@Sam: Of course, President Obama is part of the power structure and has been for some time now. I’m not demanding that he perform miracles (apparently it is his critics who believe he’s a messianic figure, who knew?), but on DADT the mixed message coming from the administration has been pathetic. Whether he likes it or not, he owns DADT as a policy, and he’s justly criticized for not doing more (anything?) to repeal it.
JohnV
I’m not saying we should start calling him names and denouncing him, but we should be applying as much pressure as possible. Call the White House everyday. Send emails to his cabinet members. Demand action.
JohnV
Quiet people are not heard.
OhYeah
The train character was probably a racist, and a homophobe, Sam.
Oaklander
DADT could be killed with an executive order, in about 1/2 an hour, if he had the will to do so. As far as those things that need congressional support… that support wont come when the man with political good-will won’t even make a stand. We are the red-headed step sons.
Sir Winston Thriller
How is it that an African American president is satisfied with Separate-But-Equal?
Alec
@Oaklander: Only if you believe that DADT is unconstitutional, not because of its discriminatory intent, purpose and effect, but because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the president’s inherent commander in chief power. It’s an interesting question, and much closer than Bush’s flagrant abuses of executive power, but it isn’t that clear cut.
Bill Perdue
Obama’s plan consists of buying new tires for the bus. The old ones have seen lots and lots of use.
This isn’t so odd given the history of Obama and the Democrats on LGBT equality. But it is odd in a period when there’s a sea change in terms of public support for GLBT rights.
Obama turned his back on same sex marriage and LGBT equality and became our enemy in 2000 and hasn’t looked back. Most Democrats and all Republicans have done the same, depending on the state of our movement and public opinion. Obama did it because he’s a gutless wonder, an unprincipled panderer who, like all presidents before him since Lincoln, is a hustler in it for the money.
And partly because he’s fighting yesterdays battles. His whole approach to LGBT rights is subordinate to his determination to out-Rove Rove, of getting elected by bigots no matter who gets run over by the bus.
On the economy he’s adopted Bush’s basic approach: welfare for the rich and austerity for working people with the occasional fig leaf to fool the gullible. The same is true of the war.
Whether the Democrats like it or not the piper will be paid. Obama is ignoring historic changes in the situation and fighting the battles of 2000 and 2004. It’s all he can do because the Democrats have no understanding of history. They don’t understand what happened in 1776 or 1860. They don’t look forward to change, they oppose it.
That explains why they and the Republicans are essentially right centrist reactionaries, but not why people who claim to want what’s best for the GLBT communities support them.
GLBT apologists for the Democrats are Republicans in drag.
sfsilver
We must not repeat the huge mistake that we collectively made in the 1990’s. Clinton came into office and almost the entire activist community, myself included, breathed a huge sigh of relief and told ourselves that we had “friend” in the White house who would do right by us. We stopped fighting, our grassroots organizations almost entirely disappeared, and we shifted to a political model that entirely and exclusively relied on professional LGBT lobbying orgs such as HRC to all of the work on our behalf. Activism stopped being about personal level engagement and direct action and shifted to attending HRC and GLAAD galas.
We must not repeat our mistakes. We have to learn from our history and this time around all of us must be personally engaged in DEMANDING our slice of the change and hope that Obama promised us. I believe in him, but without any pressure from us he will continue to sideline our issues. There will never be a convenient time when these issues will not rile up the homophobia of the lowest dregs of America. We must not be afraid of their response, we must steer the ship, not just lounge about on the Lido deck planning our next circuit event.
Alec
@Bill Perdue: A charitable view would be that you’re too blinded by ideology to effectively read the American political scene. As I said, it would be charitable.
Would the LGBT community be better off supporting the Communist Party of America? Last I checked, they didn’t even run candidates.
I also see you’ve conveniently ignored the civil rights era battles, a cause the Marxists attempted to co-op, although the gains were clearly made by liberal reformists. The so called “right centrist reactionaries” you despise so.
Sam
@Alec: It’s interesting that you say Obama has been part of the power structure “for some time now,” when he was roundly condemned in the elections for not having been in power long enough. Four years as the junior senator from Illinois, then a few terms in the Illinois state senate before that does not a Robert Byrd make.
Regardless, DADT is a good example of how sometimes small, quiet actions start the ball rolling, even if you don’t get credit. I’m confident that DADT will be repealed in his first term…
Alec
@Sam: A sitting US senator with center left views that put him firmly in the American mainstream. A casual glance at his donor base confirms that he’s an insider, albeit one with a different domestic constituency. He’s relatively socially liberal, but that isn’t saying much. Despite their opposition to DADT, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, the leading Democratic primary candidates, failed to cosponsor legislation to repeal it.
I rather like President Obama, but I’m not going to excuse his failure to develop a strategy on DADT; it’s become clear to me through the mixed messages that there isn’t a unified plan within the administration. Nor, for that matter, should we excuse the Democratic leadership; the ball really is in their court.
Sam
@OhYeah: Wow. Just… just wow.
That is quite possibly the most racist, ignorant comment I’ve ever read here, which for Queerty is saying something. A woman on a train in New York City – one of the most gay-accepting cities on the planet – is automatically a homophobe, just because she’s black? I just… I don’t even know what to say.
Please leave.
The Lesbian Mafia
Excellent post. Thanks for spitting the truth because we need to hear it.
The HRC serves as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party instead of gay rights. They continue to speak for the whole even during this past election when the community was/is clearly divided. They funneled millions of dollars into Barack Obama’s campaign at their own behest further dividing the community, and gave only 2 or 3 million to securing marriage in California while Mormons donated over 20 million to insure it passed. They put Barack Obama’s presidency over gay rights and this is why the HRC will never see one single red cent from us ever again.
We sat and watched Barack tell Joe Saboteur Solomenese directly to his face that he does not support gay marriage. Yet HRC refuses to criticize his open bigotry, and continue to make every excuse in the book for it. That is what you call hypocrisy.
These “gay advocates” are more sabotaging and destructive to the community than any “boogyman” they call republican or conservative because this seems to be a conscious withdrawal of efficiency on HRC’s part and they seem to be actually aiding in the weakening of our cause to further their own careers perhaps. Or they too, just can’t admit they got duped yet. One can only assume we have been sold down the river by these “gay organizations” just like all of the anchors on MSNBC gay and not gay alike, are more concerned with basking in some Obama spotlight, getting famous for supporting him, getting drunk on Martha Stewart shows, and perpetuating the lie that the Democratic party is in unison on issues of equality.
Sam
@sfsilver: I agree with you 110%. While @Oaklander is wrong that Obama could repeal DADT with an executive order, he could have already signed an executive order adding gender identity protections to federal employment regulations and banning LGBT employment discrimination for federal contractors.
He said he’d do it. He could’ve done it on Day 1. It’s now Day 100+. Where is HRC (or any other advocacy org) calling on their members to apply pressure? I send an e-mail about it every week, but until there’s an organized effort, it’s not really “pressure.”
Chris
Well, if listening to all the bickering amongst us on this message board is any indication, we won’t achieve much in the Obama administration.
This is up to US, folks. No one else. Certainly NOT politicians.
This is up to US.
And we will have no other choice than to be loud and obnoxious about it.
99% of them already hate us and would prefer us dead, so what have we got to lose anyway?
timncguy
@Sam: You are right that Obama cannot REPEAL DADT by executive order. But, he CAN by executive order tell the military NOT to enforce it as he is commander in chief. He could also change his budget to REMOVE the money in it for enforcement of DADT.
These are not my ideas. Tthese are facts that were well published in the last few days on other sites.
It wouldn’t take him any time away from the other more pressing issues everyone is always excusing him with.
Alec
@timncguy: Actually it isn’t clear that he can issue an executive order rescinding the “tell” portion of the statute. He could certainly submit a budget that defunded enforcement. He could also impose additional evidentiary burdens, arguably, making it next to impossible for the military to actually discharge someone under the statute. There’s a good article exploring the possibilities on the SSRN site: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1330186
Sam
@timncguy: I’m not sure that ordering the military to ignore a law passed by Congress and signed by a past President is a precedent we want Obama to set. We usually look pretty poorly on foreign leaders when they order the military to ignore the law.
And just from a practical matter, once Obama orders the military not to enforce DADT, what’s to stop a future, Bush-like President from doing the opposite, even after it’s repealed? Once you’ve done it in one direction, the door’s open for the other.
timncguy
@Sam: nothing is there to stop a future president. But, Obama could certainly stop the discharges NOW while waiting for congress to do their part and repeal DADT. And, it wouldn’t take him a lot of time away from the fixing of the economy everyone always uses for an excuse to wait.
Alec
@timncguy: That’s just it; it isn’t clear that he can do that. As far as I can tell he would be acting agaist the will of congress, and would have to rely on his inherent power as commander in chief of the armed forces. It isn’t clear that the regulations applicable under the statute can simply be disregarded because the president decides to implement them. It isn’t a clear cut case, and we can’t simply pretend it is.
timncguy
@Alec: although the article you reference may say it isn’t clear that Obama has the power to stop discharges, the article I read made it quite clear that he does have the power.
Lee
Alec, it’s clear to Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire,” the definitive analysis of the evolution of DADT, senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, which has studied DADT since its inception, and history professor:
“There is no brain surgery involved in ending the gay ban. Unlike solving the financial crisis, winning the war in Afghanistan, or curing cancer, we know perfectly well how to do it. There’s no mystery involved, just will. …[He could issue] an immediate executive order halting gay discharges. Contrary to popular belief, the current president still has that option: even though Congress has to repeal the law to get it off the books, nothing in the statute requires that findings of homosexual discharge ever be made. That wording of the law, along with the president’s constitutional and statutory authority to suspend military separations when in the interest of national security still give him the power to cease firing gay troops right now.”
Palm Center Executive Director Aaron Belkin was quoted in Monday’s NY Times, saying:
“A forthcoming study by experts in military law, sponsored by the Palm Center, shows that President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality. The law requires that the military discharge service members found to be gay. But nothing requires the military to reach such findings. The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.”
At least 56%, and up to 81% of the American public would back him in a confrontation with Congress as they believe DADT should be dumped.
timncguy
@Lee: yep, those are the same writings I have been referring to.
Alec
@timncguy: Do you have the article on hand? Because the best I’ve come across, and I’ve talked with quite a few people on this point as well, including some gay rights attorneys, is that the power is “arguable.” And since Congress shares in the regulation of the military (US Const. Art. I section 8 clause 14, “Congress shall have the power…to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”), it isn’t at all clear that the president can use his commander in chief and wartime authority to circumvent an explicit regulation of congress.
Lee
The larger point, Alec, is that Obama is not even trying to succeed with the “argument”…he’s abandoned the battlefield…legal and moral.
Alec
@Lee: I’ll gladly read the analysis. Almost everything I have read so far suggests it isn’t that clear cut. He was quoted Monday; do you know when the report will be released?
@Lee: I honestly don’t know what’s going on inside the administration, certainly a mixed message. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, and I was very disappointed with what Gates had to say (I opposed that selection from the beginning, albeit not because of DADT).
Oaklander
We are totally focused on DADT, but this is only one of the many ways Obama and his people have made it clear that they don’t see us as humans with equal rights.
Lee
I find no publishing date yet for that Palm Center legal analysis, but in a subsequent brief commentary by Belkin on the NYT “debate,” he reminds that there is precedent for ignoring DADT in the application of “Stop-loss.”
In fact, ignoring the earlier ban on gays in the interests of the country’s defense goes all the way back to WWII. It was applied again during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf 1 and today.
Since 9/11, the Pentagon, who report to the President, acted on their own to ignore a law Congress had passed. That is the same kind of umbrella under which Nathaniel Frank and Aaron Belkin and others suggest Obama act: national security.
And the case can be FACTUALLY made, both generally in terms of the difficulties maintaining adequate troop strenth the military is having that has forced them to lower physical, mental, and legal standards for service [more and more are being inducted who have felony convictions] AND specifically in terms of the shortage of Arab language speakers when several gay linguists have been discharged.
As Knights Out’s Daniel Choi, now being discharged, reported:
“On Monday, September 10th 2001, a message was intercepted by the State Department: ‘tomorrow is zero hour’. Despite its simplicity, nobody was able to translate it. Any of the dozens of linguists already discharged for being gay at the time would have done so easily.”
You think Obama would fail at rubbing THAT in Congress’s face?
Timmeeeyyy
Lane Hudson has a very good article on the Huffington Post regarding Obama’s lukewarm at best response to equality for gays and lesbians.
“We’re in the midst of mind-blowing progress towards being treated equally by the law and the White House can’t muster one bit of emotion or congratulatory tone.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/white-house-speechless-on_b_198321.html
Sam
@Lee: The problem with “trying to succeed with the ‘argument'” is that actions have political ramifications. Congress doesn’t like it when the President ignores them. Acting unilaterally on a contentious issue is generally not well looked upon by the American public. We’ve already been fucked on this issue when the media set up the last go around as “Clinton vs. the Military,” which is what led to DADT to begin with.
I’d rather he work through the process with Congress and the military to repeal DADT than commit some strange, constitutionally questionable, political suicide that will significantly hurt the chances of any more progress on LGBT issues during his administration. I still think ENDA will impact the lives of many MANY more LGBT folk than DADT ever will, and I’d rather we get that before even touching DADT.
John in SF
@CTC: I’m puzzled by CTC’s claim that “we have forsaken strategy for the sake of speaking our minds”. Huh? What strategy? We’ve been waiting for HRC to work its “strategy” for years, and the result is one compromise after another, one electoral loss after another, and Solomnese appears now to be going along with Obama’s backsliding on campaign promises. The Administration even “disappeared” their LGBT rights language from their website.
If there is any evidence that HRC has a strategy, I’d love to hear it. Tea is not a strategy, unless you’re in Boston in 1773.
john
I don’t think he’ll do anything for gay rights. I think he’s all talk and no action.
Moi au Texas
I love how everyone is complaining about how Obama “hasn’t done anything for gays”. Because there definitely wasn’t just a Hate Crimes Bill that was passed in Congress, oh and I forgot that we have a bull economy that’s thriving and all. Good thing we’re not in a recession or anything, and if we were in one, why do anything about it? It’s not like it would affect everyone in the world including gays. How long has Obama been in office? Just over 100 days? As if he doesn’t have enough on his plate from the last guy who was in that office. Which by the way, in case you have short term memory loss and forgot already, George W. Bush did jack for gays. Why don’t we just put that genius back in office?
dgz
call me hopelessly optimistic.
i honestly think that the DNC and house dems are putting the brakes on him so they don’t lose their majority in 2010 by galvanizing the social-issue crazies.
although *i* don’t see the point of having a majority if you don’t do anything with it, i’m also not a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac like most people willing to run for national office… so for them, self-preservation will probably always trump The Cause.
Jeremie
@John in SF:
“We’ve been waiting for …”
I think CTC meant that we gays should have a strategy instead of waiting for someone else to fight our battles. It’s about doing instead of talking. There are ways to maneuver and lobby in the dark, that is how conservatives have gotten their way (except when they resort to downright fear, which is their second tactic); expressing our anger at having our rights raped has proven uneffective because our opponents do not care.
Anyway, on Obama, I wish more people would say this: right now our country is in shambles. When Obama made his campaign promises, it was either before the economic crisis, or before the crisis’ full impact was grasped. Republicans, who would rather see this country drown then saved by Democrats (as per their own words, i.e.: Limbaugh, et al) are fighting everything sensible decision tooth and nail; the gay dossier is a huge on, because it is one where they still have that irrational, religious bigotted ammo to use, and it’s definitely not something Obama’s fragile government can weather right now, on top of everything else.
I am gay. I am American. I hope to marry some day (and I hope to have the money to *have* a wedding!)… BUT, the viral trends of legalization of gay marriage seems to be gaining some momentum thanks to the well-planned strategy of our own gay advocates, and does not seem to need Obama’s help. The second he snatches the issue, it will become an intense focus of the national Republican party (who right now is more focused on … the economy and their crumbling apart).
I’m also very surprised that everybody seems to have forgotten about the Bush Department of Justice. Gonzales systematically introduced partisanship within the neutral DoJ, and fired judges because they refused to fold to the Republican agenda. Does nobody realize that judges are an important part of the American fabric? That the Supreme Court is important but is not the only judicial instance of our country?
I would like to see this act punished, Gonzales prosecuted, because corrupting the judges is a sure way to muzzle any civil evolution: be it for gays, or any other second-class minority (though admittedly we’re part of the last ones … !).
John in SF
@Jeremie: Jeremie I basically agree with you. Where we may differ is the notion that HRC has a successful strategy of moneuvering in the dark. I agree that politics is not always best played on Countdown with Keith Olberman or the pages of Queerty. Its just that the last time they maneuvered in the dark it was SO dark that they slammed the door in the face of the transgender members of our community. It was so dark that they couldn’t see the rise of the Mormon right in California. And it appears that it is so dark today that they are being left in the dust by some very effective state level politicking and legal work elsewhere in our community.
Again, if anybody knows what HRC’s strategy is for achieving equality at the federal level, I’d love to hear it. I can’t buy a copy of it with my lovely HRC MasterCard, I can’t wear it with a lovely HRC T-shirt, and I can’t slap it on my bumper and my luggage.
Now would be a very good time for equality. Now is not the time for HRC to compromise and vascillate and in so doing to give Obama a Free Pass. The problems our country faces are only worsened when we treat our citizens unequally. The country wants a new direction, and so far, Obama has done an aweful lot of continuing in the old Bushist direction of huge bailouts for banks, using military solutions for social and political problems, tolerance of torture, and enabling a system of inequality. He needs to do SOMETHING to start charting the new course he promised us during the campaign. Equality would be a perfect place to start.
Dan
I’ve noticed that several posters who used to be fixtures on Queerty haven’t posted in a while. They had said that they might not be back because of the site’s newly minted preoccupation with dissing the HRC and especially Obama.
One article looked like an attempt at more balanced, accurate coverage, but it was the only one I saw. The news reflected above is passably good, but the reporting transforms it into another one-sided riff against Obama and the HRC.
It’s the editors who are in the driver’s seat, and I guess the “new Queerty” has made a decision to let the 70% of LGBT people who support Obama – and the likely still larger percentage who support HRC – drift away.
I didn’t join them at the time, because I felt that the loss of that cross-section of people would rob the site of much of its diversity. In the end, the harm to Queerty would translate into some harm to our community as a whole and to our prospects for securing equality.
This isn’t just about the cross-section who have left. Fewer new people will join, because now Queerty reflects the views of a much smaller demographic – especially in the LGBT community. I haven’t made a decision yet for myself, but I offer these thoughts with the hope that better reporting and commentary, and a more effective nexus for social action, might still be possible.
Herbo
@Dan:
let ’em go elsewhwere
they can go beat off to Obama’s dot GOV site
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Alec:
Alec, you’re such a lawyer…how the HELL do you get the energy to get into soo many f*cking debates a day???
Sheez.
How does NOTHING piss you off emotionally? You NEVER lose your cool?
Urgh.
Mike Barton
WOW! When did Queerty become the Log Cabin Republican version of the Republican dissent machine? He’s been in office barely over 100 days and we haven’t seen what we wanted. Well, President Obama certainly isn’t doing anything. He hasn’t delivered universal healthcare, repealed DOMA or DADT, walked on water or cured cancer. Impeach the bum already!
Seriously, assuming that there is not a strategy could be in error. We’re talking about loaded social issues here (refer back to Prop 8 to gain perspective). He can’t just wiggle his nose and make it happen, nor would it be wise for him to publicize his strategy. What do you think those that oppose our freedoms would do if they knew what strategy would be used to do it? You don’t tell your opponents that you’re going to sneak up on them in the middle of the night of the next new moon – they’ll be waiting to take you down.
Herbo
@Mike Barton:
He can’t “wiggle his nose” and address the equality of his country’s citizens?
I guess he pretended to be Samantha leading up to the election…but is now clearly showing he’s an Aunt Clara.
Lee
Dan, how can I put this politely? ….You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!
There is NO empirical evidence that “70%” of gays still support Obama in terms of his action/inaction on his LGBT promises. Roughly 73% of self-identified gays in exit polls voted for him but you’d never find CNN spending 10 minutes on a spot about gay dissastisfaction if they were any reason to believe that was still true.
Even Andrew Sullivan, who, during the primaries, did everything but declare Obama the Risen Christ and did essentially declare Hillary a psychotic, ruthless homohating liar, just questioned Obama’s inaction and whether he and others had been “fools.”
And please document your claim that a “likely still larger percentage” support HRC. Even before the ENDA T-inclusive/non-inclusive debacle, support for them was plummeting because of everything from having accomplished virtually nothing in their over 30 years/hundreds of millions of dollars in donations history to giving awards to Reichen and Lance.
Their rimming Obama may have kept them on the White House cocktail party invitation list so far, but note CNN didn’t ask THEIR opinion of Obama’s performance so far.
Dan
@Lee: If you want me to reply to you, please post with civility.
Michael W.
Leland is so excited by all of these anti-Obama posts that he can’t contain himself.
TRENT
I HAVE AN IDEA, WHY DONT WE ALL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA NEXT TIME AND SEE IF HE STILL WINS. YOU KNOW THE 10% OF US?. LETS TRY VOTING REPUBLICAN THUIS TIME. LIKE PALIN SAID, THEY CAN AT LEAST TOLERATE ME BETTER. OBAMA HATES HATES HATES GAYS. YOU KNOW HE INTRODUCED A STUPID BILL CALLED DADT.
Steve
QUEERTY is actually doing better than DRUDGE as far as OBAMA hate is concerned. I swear you guys are meaner that the right wings.
fitc
Awe shux Queerty, you’re so “mean” for being informed and working your ass off to keep US informed. I want to live in “make believe” land with My Little Pony and play pretend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_rIAkb_v8
fitc
@Dan: For those who leave there will be new to arrive. I am a new reader. I appreciate the guts this blog has in speaking the truth to a portion that is left of the LGBT that still choose to live in a fantasy world that Obama is going to keep his promises on any front LEAST of them being LGBT. His bedfellows and consequently his actions and inactions speak volumes of who he is.
He’s also moved the war like a chess piece from Iraq to Afghanistan also btw. Pretending he is keeping his promise to end the war.
For all of the irresponsibly biased blogs and corrupt news coverate there is out there, thank goodness there is ONE responsible and respectable website daring to hold the new messiah to his promises.
If you are content to lick his boots, then by all means … go to town.
This is still a free country. You are free to read and free to not read. There is a plethora of Obamaworship all over the MSM … go, enjoy yourself.
Dennis
@Dan:
I feel for you man…trying to introduce any reasoned discourse on Obama on this site is next to impossible. If you say you’re glad pressure is being applied to Obama, but that we should also give him -even a little(!)- time to coordinate positive changes for us…well, that’s not enough, and you’ll be hounded and insulted here. Obama is the anti-christ on this site, with more insults hurled at him, than at ANY right-wing zealot. (I’m not kidding, Obama hating posts far outnumber anything against the reicht-wing)
Many have left, I can barely tolerate this site anymore, venom and frothing at the mouth rule here…
Oh no, here come the villagers with pitchforks and burning torches, have to run!
Bill Perdue
@Alec: Still playing Roy Cohn I see. What a sleaze. Both or you were/are lawyers and apologists for right centrist parties, preferring retard red-baiting and simple-minded legislative fig leafs to fundamental change.
Why are you interested in moribund Stalinist groups like the CP USA? They’re Democrats you know; they’ve been in your party since the 1950s, actively supporting its candidates most of the time. I’m sure you’re not bright enough to spot them but real leftists can smell them a mile away. It wasn’t for nothing that Trotsky described Stalinism as the “syphilis of the workers movement.”
It says volumes that they’re so comfortable in the Democratic (sic) Party.
You’re simply lying when you claim that the gains of the voting rights movement were due to liberals. The Kennedys, LBJ and you people opposed Malcolm X, SNCC and groups like the Lowndes County Freedom Party every step of the way, preferring to accommodate rather than engage in mass action. Concessions were only made on voting rights and antidiscrimination laws and then only when liberal right centrists like you understood, however dimly, that further delay would lead to social explosions.
Those voting rights laws over time have shown the utter futility of relying on elections to fix things. Racism and poverty still haunt minorities in the US.
Democrats are now the party of war and economic chaos. Neither you nor the Republicans have any have no answers for those questions and none for eliminating racism, anti-LGBT bigotry and sexism.
Democrats and dinosaurs are alike in their inability to know they’re politically extinct. But that’s OK, you’ll have plenty of time to figure it out.
D.C
@Dabq:
Yeah. I’ve come 100% convinced that Queerty’s bread and butter now derives comes from the anti-Obama and anti-black, gay camp. Its really sad. Sometimes I wonder if you’re more likely to read the word nigger on a gay blog’s comment section mostly treaded on by white gays than a KKK chat room. I’m not kidding you. I’m thinking of doing an experiment for such a plausible hypothesis.
Mark M
@D.C: Well, if you do that make sure you see how many times you see the word FAGGOT on a black site.
D.C
Actually, I do look for those kind of comments.
I still see more of the word nigger on white gay sites than the word faggot on black sites. No kidding. Go to blackplanet and black america web then come here and search through the articles.
I’m not kidding at all. Entertain yourself.
mbb
How many posts on this do you make per day guys? I’m deleting my subscription on Google reader.
TANK
Obama’s secret gay plan involves us moving to a more gay friendly country. Shhhhhhh, secret! k thx bai
Alec
@John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Oh, I lose it sometimes. But this isn’t nearly as bad as dealing with other attorneys.
FireFly
I’m not gay and have a few gay friends but disagree with some of the topics of gay discussion I’ve seen on the news etc etc.
I have an honest question though.
What is it exactly that’s being sought by achieving legal gay marriage?
Is it just the benefits of being married that straight couples receive, being allowed equally to gay couples? (giving gay couples the same legal benefits as straight couples)
I have a theory that I’d really like running past someone here, who’s gay, that believes in gay marriage.
You can email me on my alias email, [email protected]
Yes it’s a real email address and I’ll start checking it.
I have an idea that may get the recognition everyone seeks, without having to battle the religious folk who I’ve seen make up the majority of those against gay marriage. I’ll even try to start a campaign to get the legal recognition using my idea!
Please email me! I’d really appreciate the conversation!
Tony
Obama ignores us and reneges on every promise made to the LGBT Community, the promises he used to get our time and our money. HRC put Obama love before their support of LGBT issues such as defeating Prop 8.
God forbid we point out the fact that Obama campaigned with gay haters such as Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary. How dare we point out that he chose homohater Rick Warren to have the highest honor a memeber of the clergy can receive from a new President. How dare we be upset that Obama dealt the death-blow to defeating Prop 8 by stating days before the election that he is against same sex marriage because “God is in the mix…”
If you point out Obama’s horrific treatment of the LGBT Community, his lies and broken promises used to swindle us out of money and time that would have been better spent defending our rights, we are insta-magically racists and Obama haters. Puhleeeeeze.
Obama’s thin charm is wearing thinner and thinner daily. He is a slick and slimely douchebag politician. When will the Obamabots wake up and smell the bullshit?!?!
Stitch
Just a quick question:
I understand that my rights are at stake, blah blah blah, but is anyone else SICK AND TIRED of the stupid back and forth on this site re: Obama not showing the gays enough love??
I GET IT.
Some of you think he’s the devil incarnate, turncoat Judas who sold us down the river once he took office.
Some of you think that there are other forces at work, and that Obama at least doesn’t deserve 100% of the vitriol he’s being targeted with.
Can we PLEASE move on?
Hey Queerty! Write about something else! It’s all half naked men and Obama rants these days.
Tony
“Hey Queerty! Write about something else! It’s all half naked men and Obama rants these days.”
I come for the “half naked men” and I stay for the “Obama rants”.
I think many in the LGBT Community are waking up the the smell of bullshit. Some of us gave generously of our time and money to Baby Jesus Obamabigot and were hoping for a little more than just broken promises from another empty suit. So yeah, we are a little upset, and we are paying attention.
This website is one of the very few having the balls to call Obama on his promises, and not offering him excuses each and every time he slaps the LGBT Community in the face. This website has (as far as I can remember) always had eye candy offered, and those of us who like looking at attractive men, enjoy it. It is funny how when people get upset about Queerty questioning Obama, they often include a thinly-veiled homophobic dig about the pictures of semi-clad men. And yes, many gay men have issues with their own homophobia. And many gay men are just a wee bit jealous of men who take good care of their bodies. Get over it.
I love this website. It is a one stop shop for me to be able to vent about my dissatisfaction with being made a second-class citizen, and with my President, who states that God disapproves of gay couples being seen as equal, and who continually rubs elbows with the most horrible of antigay bigots such as Warren, McClurkin et al.and look at of the really hot guys, cuz I’m a big homo.
Tony
Or I guess I could read the ever-boring Americablog and uber-douche John Aravosis and his flop-flopping view of Obamabigot.
Rob
I’m sick of the BS and getting screwed over by politicians. Call the White House comment line and speak with a rep and make your voice heard. I did this today. If we all did this more often, and got more involved… it could help. I’m through donating to Obama and the DNC until DADT is resolved.
Jim
How about we as gays not playing the martyr card for a change? Stop engaging in self-fulfilling prophecies? Obama does have plan. He is pragmatic and strategic, something lost on some of our leaders. He is saying start with passing our national hate crimes and non-discrimination in housing and employment legislation in Congress, barring sexual orientation discrimination in our military following a military commission into the matter this fall and Congressional action early next year, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act to introduce legislation calling for federallly recognized civil unions for all with the government out of the defining marriage game for good. So, I am saying keep up the pressure, but stop with the hysteria and alienating your base.