Despite Sam Stein’s latest that members of Congress are being “whipped” to make sure enough of them will vote for a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal as part of the 2010 Defense Reauthorization spending bill, it’s hard to tell whether there’s actually any real momentum here. Sure, there’s a report that “a source close to the White House says the president has instructed the Defense Department that he believes the repeal of DADT should be placed in the authorization bill,” but Obama’s “instructions” — or rather, their purposeful leaks to liberal media outlets — don’t necessarily carry much weight. Especially because next year’s defense bill is a long way off, and that’s a whole lot of room for unpredictable barriers.
don't tell hell
Obama Has ‘Instructed’ the Defense Department to Repeal DADT In Next Year’s Budget Bill. Worth Getting Excited Over?
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
jhd
I’ll believe it when I see it. This man has lied and delayed so many things it’s hard to count them.
He’s just dangling this out there because gay people are smart enough to finally start rebelling. Look at the cover of the Advocate this month.
Kris
I am a little more concerned about the current Prop8 trial and seeing someone from Obama’s administration step in and take some action on a situation that is part of the here and now.
I am quickly becoming displeased with the lack of action taken by this administration in regard to GLBT issues.
Dan
The defense bill won’t pass until after the midterm elections. If Obama had any intention of granting us our rights, he’d be doing something about ENDA, because that’s supposedly next in line. Without ENDA, the momentum won’t be there – the perfect excuse for Obama when DADT repeal gets stripped from the defense bill. Obama won’t do anything unless we force his hand by closing our wallets.
Cam
They’ll put it in there, then remove it as soon as some Republican looks at them cross eyed, then they can turn around to the gays and say, “Oh gee, we tried, you see, it’s the evil republicans that stopped us.”
Michael W.
“They’ll put it in there, then remove it as soon as some Republican looks at them cross eyed.”
Republicans looked at them cross-eyed when they made the Matthew Shepard Act apart of the last defense authorization bill and they didn’t remove it.
I’m not getting excited simply because we don’t have a solid source yet, but there’s no greater shot at repealing DADT than attaching it to a defense bill (which is how it passed in the first place, btw).
B
No. 2 · Kris wrote, “I am a little more concerned about the current Prop8 trial and seeing someone from Obama’s administration step in and take some action on a situation that is part of the here and now.” … it’s not appropriate for someone in the administration to “step in” in any way that would give the appearance of interfering with an independent judiciary.
While we can hope for a favorable outcome, even if we don’t get it, the trial may still work in favor of a repeal, especially if it is televised. Seeing real-life gays and lesbians testifying about how Proposition Eight affects their lives could have a significant impact on public opinion, a possibility that IMHO is the real reason Proposition Eight supporters do not want videos of the trial made public.
The other problem Proposition Eight supporters have is that their whole campaign was based on lies. You can get away with that in paid advertising, but not in court – not when being questioned about their lies by attorneys like Ted Olson and David Boies who can make mincemeat of a liar pretty quickly.
1EqualityUSA
mincemeat…yes.
Steve
I’m sure they don’t give a flying fart about gay people. They just want our money before the next election. They are just now beginning to realize that they might not get much of that, unless they start making some visible motions on some of their promises from the last election.
I read somewhere that the top three categories of contributors to the Democrats are: 1-Hollywood; 2-Lawyers; 3-Gays. Knowing that Hollywood is mostly gay, that list really should be: 1-Gays; 2-Lawyers. They NEED our money if they want to be re-elected.
If gays start supporting Libertarians, the Democrats will be in a world of hurt, and they know it. What is the best way to keep gay support? It’s obvious — they will pass one or two of the things we have been asking for, but leave the rest for later.
The selection of what to pass is the hard part. They have to throw the dog a big enough bone to keep it occupied until the election, without having so much meat that it is not hungry. The several mentions of DADT that I have seen recently tell me, they think repealing DADT might be that bone.
Brian NJ
Just another ploy for support because Obama is about to press for civil rights for illegal immigrants before pressing for civil rights for gay veterans and gay families. But it is immigration reform that Rahm wants, not rights for us. That is where they are doing the real work right now, making phone calls, lobbying legislators, getting the cabinet in line, readying hearings.
But now when he tries to throw some scraps of meat in our cage while pushing us further down the list, we throw it right back in his face. We recognize when we are being appeased.
Hey Rahm, go take your meat and go fuck yourself.
TommyOC
All I know is that if the Prop 8 Trial rules in our favor and SCOTUS upholds the ruling… there won’t be a reason to vote Democrat anymore, will there?
That’s gotta have Obama & Co. nervous!
Matthew Rettenmund
@TommyOC : If you really believe that, that all that matters is gay rights, why should the other 90% or 95% of the country, including the straight president, give a shit about what you want? There are many reasons to continue voting Democrat that have nothing to do with gay rights, but if you really only care about gay rights, the biggest no-brainer reason is that voting Republican (usually, not always, the only alternative) is voting AGAINST gay rights. And no matter what progress we make on gay rights under Obama, don’t think for a second the fight is over—the Republicans will try anything and everything to overturn that progress until the electorate becomes overwhemingly pro-gay.
christopher di spirito
The repeal of DADT (and DOMA) are two of the reasons I voted for Obama. He pledged to get it done. I will hold him to it. If he fails, my vote will go elsewhere in 2012.
Fitz
DADT should have ended on Nov 10, 2008 with an executive stop-loss order. This is just an attempt to sooth the gays and get them back into agreeing to turn the cheek and write the check. 90%+ of American is straight, but in this country we believe in minority protection. Anyway– back to the point at hand: 1) too little, and too late. He is just another phobe to me. and 2) We were better off with republicans, because then we had allies in the progressive community. Now that they have their man, they want us to shut up and tow the line. I ain’t playing. My vote, my time, my money goes to my allies.
naghanenu
Okay..
This Obama hate is tired. The man said he was a fierce gay advocate. I dont see where he has failed. He never said that he will repeal DADT in his first year, he never said DOMA will be repealed as soon as he seats down on the President’s chair and he has not balked on gay rights so far.
He said he will leave gay marriage to the states…because believe it or not people, that is the best he can do for now. Obama never said he was a gay Messiah. He is not stupid either. You realise this country is run by the conservatives. Democrats for all their hypocrisy know this. Besides how many dems do u actually think support gays? I mean look at NY and New Jersey. Even the so called liberals…look at Maine.
For now the state option is the best option. DOMA is going to be very difficult to repeal under the current Congress and with the way gay movment has been yoyoing for the last two years…c’mon! We can only hope that Prop 8 is voted as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That will get the momentum going to attack other state bans and when enough states support gay marriage we can push for DOMA.
naghanenu
Also somthing is bugging me…
Ive been getting some updates on the trial from TWITTER. I am confused though.
Are the defenders of Prop 8 not doing anything in this trial? Is that people just arent posting their input? Is it a sign that things are winning for opponents of prop 8 or…?
naghanenu
Also somthing is bugging me…
Ive been getting some updates on the trial from TWITTER. I am confused though.
Are the defenders of Prop 8 not doing anything in this trial? Is it that people just arent posting their input? Is it a sign that things are winning for opponents of prop 8 or…?
WildwoodGuy WA
@Kris: I agree! Why aren’t we seeing something (anything?) from the WH regarding the current trial? I would feel much better knowing Obama is ‘instructing’ someone… anyone… about this *NOW* than about removing DOMA or DADT at some ‘future’ date. That seems a bit too nebulous for me!
Sleepy Lukas
@ NAGHAGENU: This is simplified because i’m dog tired:
After the judge settled some procedural matters, attorney Olson (from “our side”) laid out the reasons he believes Prop 8 is unconstitutional and gave an overview of the case. Then he began calling the people who petitioned for Prop 8’s being unconstitutional (starting with members of g/l couples) and then called expert witnesses to testify (such as on the history of how marriage has been related to other rights, e.g., for slaves)
The other side for now has been allowed to cross examine those witnesses.
Their legal team will defend Prop 8 as constitutional [and as a good thing!]; the defendants will present their side provide their own witnesses.
The judge has been active in asking questions of witnesses to clarify their testimony.
This is a three week trial, so entire days may be devoted to one side or the other.
I hope this helps—i’m sure someone else can provide more and clearer details if you need them.
Lukas P.
@WILDWOOD,
In the US we have a separation of powers between the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. As we Americans learn in middle school, that the White House [exec. Branch ]does not control the Supreme Court’s decisions, but the President nominates candidates to the Court, and the Congress (legislative branch) approves — or doesn’t– them. Neither the Frederal or State Exec or Legis. branches will get involved in this judicial process or try to influence it.
If you ask your teachers about this in school, they may be able to find an easy book in English or in your native language so you can learn even more! Good luck!
Patrick Garies
@naghanenu: I think you forgot ENDA and UAFA, two other pieces of legislation that he could be have acted on and hasn’t.
Further, you said that he promised to repeal DADT within his first year; that means that he should have it repealed less than two weeks from today. Yeah, right. He would have to make a lot of bold advocacy moves immediately for that to even be a remote possibility.
You don’t change minds or get things done by standing in silence, making meek statements meant to preach to the choir, or backtracking on every promise. That is not leadership, it isn’t a fierce advocate, and it mostly certainly isn’t change we can believe in.
christopher di spirito
Agreed. The Obama hate is tired.
Mother Hillary lost. Deal with it. Hillary doesn’t have a pro-gay bone in her body or hidden in her size 24 Rayon pantsuit. The Obama haters think had she been elected, everything in Gay America would be fixed. Sorry but nothing can be further from the truth.
Just because you march up 5th Avenue doesn’t give you gay cred or make you an advocate to the community.
jason
Don’t fall for this “we are getting ready to repeal DADT” trick by the Democrats. They’re panicking because they can sense losing the Massachusetts senate seat of Ted Kennedy. If they lose it, they lose their super majority in Congress. They’re simply trying to get us to vote for them.
Fact is, the Democrats are trying to manipulate us. I say let them lose the seat. They don’t deserve our vote considering how they’ve treated us over DADT. We are not going to be their useful idiots.
Thumbs down to the Democrats and their lying.
Patrick Garies
@christopher di spirito: You can dislike Obama without being a Hillary sympathizer. There’s no telling how Hillary would have acted; if her husband’s history is any indication, she would have been as cowardly too.
That’s not an excuse for reneging on promises or showing a lack of leadership. Criticism (and praise) should be given where due. I believe Obama himself said that we should be holding him accountable at dinner around the time of the Washington, DC march. There’s little to praise in Obama’s un-substantive moves on DADT (all rhetoric aimed at LGBTs rather than Congress and a lot of hedging by his chief spokesman, Gibbs).
@jason: Consider who the candidates are, not just the party. I wouldn’t be voting for the anti-gay Republican. Coakley has, at least, backed up her pro-LGBT stance with action as attorney general. Voting for a better third party or independent is one thing; voting for an anti-gay candidate or choosing not to vote at all is another.
naghanenu
First of all…u guys need to sleep more.
Good Morning to all.
No. 18 · Sleepy Lukas: Thanks a bunch for the run down.
tom
@naghanenu
He said “I will grant federal civil unions with all the same rights as marriage AS SOON AS I’M IN THE WHITEHOUSE”. I watched his lips move and heard him utter those words on the campaign trail.
He is a liar.
Brian NJ
Gays angry that Obama stands by every month and watches as gay veterans are dumped on the street at any time, and especially in wartime, are outraged. Outrage is not “hating” on anyone. I voted for Obama in the primary and for president, but now am furious at his failure to get it done.
And Obama has not only failed to get two simple repeals, he has also vigorously defended them in court, something he is not required to do.
And is the White House staff — led by Rahm Emanuel – busy making phone calls to legislators, scheduling meetings, drumming up public support, making press releases on these two simple repeals? No. That is because Rahm has put us at the bottom of the agenda, just like the Democratic party did in New Jersey when they had power. Wanting our votes, getting our votes and money, but talking just enough to keep us happy.
And judging from these posts, it takes very little talking to get a gay with a crushed self-esteem to feel happy and satisfied. Polly want a cracker? Kitty want a little treat? Gays need to start asking hard, angy questions instead of just rolling over and letting the Democrats rub our bellies. Why has the White House been so sickeningly lazy? Maybe they know the truth — gays are so nice they don’t get mad.
Remember guys, nice girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.
Fitz
Oh, the internalized victims.. so quick to accept a crumb..
christopher di spirito
Patrick Garies: You’re correct. If Hillary had been the nominee and elected president, who knows?
She may have terminated her involvement with the radical, rightwing religious Capitol Hill group called “The Family,” and even cut her ties to the DLC. Stranger things have happened.
But if past behavior is any indication of future behavior, I have a better chance of winning the lottery.
TommyOC
@Matthew:
There’s a reason I haven’t looked at the Republican tickets in years – and that’s because for me, my selfish concerns of equality are as important as any other concern a politically-minded person has.
Sure, I want health care. Sure, I want more rigorous energy reform. But I also want lower taxes. And smaller government. And increased state’s rights. And depending on the year, these priorities change.
…But the desire to be treated equally never has. And that’s where my vote lies.
I’ve voted Democrat because of their general record on equality. I’m frustrated with Democrats because they took my money and my vote and are now softshoeing (at best) on the very issues they’d be “fierce advocates” for.
And if the SCOTUS can provide me with the quality the Democrats are too scared and incompetent to, then it’s game-over for the gay rights issue.
What will happen? Democrats can’t use the line to raise funds and guarantee your vote. And Republicans can’t use the same excuse to garner our enemies’. That means both may actually have to win their votes by promising (and delivering) on matters that EVERY American can benefit from.
And in that way, gay marriage granted by SCOTUS is good for everyone!
tjr101
I’ll take a wait and see approach to this. No matter what the Obama haters on this site my say, he is without doubt the most gay-friendly American president in history. He said he will repeal DADT and it will come. I don’t expect DOMA to be repealed in my lifetime and I’m still in my twenties. Congress (and America) is still too conservative.
America is a very puritanical nation. Obama has to be calculating in what he does otherwise he would have never gotten elected in a nation where so-called “liberal” states like Maine rejects same-sex marriage. So the haters can say they won’t vote for him…I do hope you like what you see from the Republican party.
Some on this site are just waiting for the Democratic president to succeed in gay-rights before they run to the bigot GOP for their tax-cuts. Had it been McCain/Palin the topic of discussion would have been a constitutional amendments.