Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  THE 'BAMA HAS SPOKEN

President Obama Tells The Universe, “Leave Britney The LGBTs Alone!”

Seeing as LGBT existence is about to be outlawed in Russia and Nigeria, Obama just issued a memorandum saying that the fair treatment of LGBT people worldwide is a major priority of United States’ foreign policy and human rights advocacy.

Specifically he said that the U.S. must engage international organizations to swiftly and significantly respond to LGBT human rights abuses by combatting the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct abroad and protecting vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.

Thanks Obama! Now how about issuing an executive order providing LGBT people basic non-employment discrimination protection within your own country?

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Dec 6, 2011
Tagged:

  • 28 Comments
    • PitterPartyofOne
      PitterPartyofOne

      Um, why would a Queerty writer ridicule a pro-gay statement by the president?

      Dec 6, 2011 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      I made sure to sign the petition on All Out* to the Nigerian government.

      *http://www.allout.org/en/actions/nigeria

      Dec 6, 2011 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • YouKnowIt!
      YouKnowIt!

      Aw, shucks. Thank you, Mr. Most-Pro-Gay-President-Evah! I’m seeing a pattern of poor domestic policies coming from this administration. Actually, poor policies in general.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @PitterPartyofOne: said…

      “Um, why would a Queerty writer ridicule a pro-gay statement by the president?”
      ______________________

      Because there is a disconnect when our govt. is saying that proper treatment of gays is important in other countries and yet it isn’t mandated by law in our own country. The writer was merely pointing out that absurdity.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Red Meat
      Red Meat

      @Cam: Criminalizing Gays is more important then job discrimination and marriage any day any where, I’m pretty sure Jesus agrees with me if he were real.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      The President does not have the authority to issue an E.O. banning discrimination in employment. That is why ENDA has been introduced.

      But God bless the President for the this new statement.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PTBoat
      PTBoat

      @Cam: The laws of those other countries have no comparison to the anti-marriage laws that we have here. These are places that are outlawing speech and even gays themselves. While not a crusader, our president has agreed to stop defending DOMA and worked to get DADT repealed while any GOP candidate would have worked in the absolute opposite direction.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      Obama is still opposed to marriage equality based on religious reasons. He failed to lift a finger to pass ENDA or repeal DOMA. But, Obama is better than George W. Bush who wanted us gays dead or in concentration camps.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert in NYC
      Robert in NYC

      To the naysayers, do you really think a republican president is going to even mention the word “gay” if elected? Forget about ENDA ever being enacted if a republican occupies the White House. They are the obstructionists to anything this president or any democrat is trying to do, remember that, even if it means doing good for the country. Their Tea Party scumbags were quite content to sink the global economy just so that this president would never get re-elected. Remember, only 8 republicans voted for repeal of DADT compared to almost all democrats.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Kurt:

      Why makes you think the POTUS lacks the authority to bar discrimination in federal hiring?

      He’s the chief executive. As such, he has co-equal power to the legislative and judicial branch to make such a determination. If the other two branches object to this particular exercise of executive power, they can follow the appropriate procedures to use their power to check and balance it.

      Sure, making antidiscrimination by statutory law (Congress) or common-law (SCOTUS) is probably more durable because it’s a hassle to get a law enacted or repealed by Congress, and SCOTUS barely decides anything anymore and when they do, they’re loathe to reconsider earlier decisions; however, consider that a controversial marginally pro-gay POTUS policy modification of existing statutory law (Clinton’s DADT, essentially an EO) went unmolested by a fairly hard-right GWB through his two terms.

      Regardless, every time Obama opens his hypocritical mouth on the issue of gay rights, I just want to slam my fist into it. Asshole.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Why can’t he fully evolve? Why is it so acceptable to so many that gay people remain second class citizens? Why is it ok to sugar coat and prancy dance around this glaring fact?

      Dec 6, 2011 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      @the crustybastard: He does have the authority to bar discrimination in federal hiring and he already has issued an EO for federal hires. (God bless the President. ) That was not the statement. The statement was not an EO protecting LGBT federal workers and applicants, it was an unqualified statement protecting LGBT people in employment.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronald Barry
      Ronald Barry

      Exactly right, Robert in NYC (Posting No. 9)! Thank you for sending a stern, necessary reminder and warning to members of the LGBT community (who also typically subscribe to the Democratic Party) that our elected progressive constituents cannot afford to lose any voters through ignorance or misinformation on the left, let alone the right–or, better yet, let alone the entire American electorate regardless of historical party affiliation. Without a doubt, for the first time in American history, one of the parties–the radical Tea Party Republican Party–truly does not represent the vast majority of its base: Republicans in Congress care about no one but the conservatives within the wealthiest top one percent of Americans. Logically, the entire American electorate who fit within the 99% would stand to benefit greatly if they were to elect a president and members of Congress who would institute sound cross-the-board Democratic policies to grow, not contract, the economy; continue domestic and foreign rehabilitation policies; and invest in the future. Thank you! –Ron Barry, LL.M., J.D., M.Phil, MA (strong Democratic Party supporter near Washington, D.C.)

      Dec 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marie Cohn
      Marie Cohn

      What, drone attacks on Uganda and Nigeria? Yeah, right. Obama’s talk is cheap.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 7:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Bedwell
      Michael Bedwell

      HERE’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO even without Congressional approval:

      1. Order that the federal government not do business with any company that does not have LGBT nondiscrimination policies, as, e.g., the city of San Francisco did YEARS ago.

      2. Order the Pentagon to include gay & lesbian service members under the Military Equal Opportunity Program.

      3. Order the Pentagon to extend to gay military couples ALL benefits not banned by DOMA such as access to military family housing.

      4. Order the Pentagon to retroactively pay eligible discharged gays the money they were arbitrarily denied simply because they were gay [that would negate the need for the class action suit against him by the ACLU that he's let his DOJ fight].

      5. Order the Pentagon to stop harassing discharged gays for repayment of so-called “unearned” enlistment bonuses, etc.

      6. Order the Pentagon to permit open service by those transgender.

      7. Order Immigration not to deport foreign born partners of gay Americans [as they LED US TO BELIEVE they were going to do].

      8. Simply and unequivocally endorse marriage equality, and drop the “God is in the mix” bullshit.

      9. Award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to gay rights pioneer Frank Kameny—which he SHOULD have done when Frank was still alive.

      10. Apologize to all of those discharged from the military [including the some 800 needlessly discharged on his watch] just as his head of the OPM apologized to Kameny for his firing as a government astronomer even though it happened over half a century ago and under another President.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 8:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @the crustybastard: He can, and has, barred discrimination in federal government jobs. However, power to regulate interstate commerce lies exclusively with Congress, according to the Constitution. Intrastate commerce falls within the purview of the individual states.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 8:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Bedwell
      Michael Bedwell

      UH, Obama did NOT bar “discrimination in federal government jobs.” That was Bill Clinton when he was President through an Executive Order reversing the ban instituted by Eisenhower.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Red Meat
      Red Meat

      @Michael Bedwell: and then in 2012 when he loses or 2016 if a republican wins, all that can be washed away over night.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jase
      Jase

      Shocker. The President does something to address countries that jail/execute gays, and all the Queerty readers can do is sit on their computers and whine “but WE can’t get married!” You people are disgusting.

      Dec 6, 2011 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Interesting
      Interesting

      (a) Potentially good int’l measure (b) ENDA through executive order is possible

      Potentially because I would want to see more of the details, which we don’t have. But given the action in Europe (including the UK) this could create a strong int’l fight for gay rights abroad.

      As for executive. It is less powerful, but it could occur. The problem is that it could be over turned by the next President. This does not, however, mean it should be ordered. It would occur through the spending power of the federal government:

      “In response to a question from the Washington Blade, Carney said he could look into the issue of what might be preventing President Obama from issuing an executive order prohibiting federal dollars from going to companies that don’t have non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

      This would virtually affect every company in the country. Now, it does not mean one would have the right to sue, which is why we would still need ENDA. But, cutting off a company’s ability to make a profit is a powerful icnetitive.

      Look I get the Obots are trying react to the crazy Republicans and those who just don’t like Obama . But there is no reason to lie. If you give a shit about gay rights, just give the full details rather than the normal partisan batshit response.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 1:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Interesting
      Interesting

      Correction: If the ENDA policy is included in anti-discrimination of company policies, it creates a contract right to sue by LGBT employees and, to a lesser extent, those not hired based on LGBT status. There would also be the impact it has on companies not in compliance competing for employees. So, this would in fact be more powerful than I indicated above.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 1:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Riker: “[Obama] can, and has, barred discrimination in federal government jobs.”

      Oh bullshit.

      Do I really need to enumerate the ways that gay federal employees have fewer rights, benefits and privileges than heterosexual federal employees? Consider: Can a gay federal employee put her legal spouse on her health insurance policy? That issue was litigated. The court said “sure she can.” Obama said, “no way, forget it.”

      Obama’s position is “you homos are welcome to compete for jobs on equal terms, but don’t expect equal compensation.”

      If you can muster up a hardon for a guy that thinks like that in 2011, you’re as pathetic as he is.

      @Red Meat: …if a republican [sic] wins that can all be washed away…”

      So Obama should do nothing to help gays because a Republican might undo it?

      I rolled my eyes so hard I think I just fucking sprained them.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert in NYC
      Robert in NYC

      @Interesting:

      Actually, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, a conservative leader of the coalition government in the UK was the first international leader to admonish other countries to reform on LGBT rights last month including the cutting off of direct aid to offender governments. He also supports same-sex marriage in the UK, unlike Obama who is having an extremely difficult time evolving on this one issue for fear of upsetting the religious nutjobs on both sides of the aisle. He hasn’t learned to differentiate between religious and civil. He should take a note from David Cameron’s book and grow a pair.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 9:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert in NYC
      Robert in NYC

      @Interesting:

      Actually, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, a conservative leader of the coalition government in the UK was the first international leader to admonish other countries to reform on LGBT rights last month including the cutting off of direct aid to offender governments. He also supports same-sex marriage in the UK, unlike Obama who is having an extremely difficult time evolving on this one issue for fear of upsetting the religious nutjobs on both sides of the aisle. He hasn’t learned to differentiate between religious and civil. He should take a note from David Cameron’s book and grow a pair. That said, I would still vote for him to keep any republican out of the White House. There is no alternative.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 9:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bagooka
      bagooka

      It’s December 7th, 2011. Has the Obummer evolved yet?

      Dec 7, 2011 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Interesting
      Interesting

      @Robert in NYC: Why are you saying “actually” since nothing you wrote contradicts what I said. Its easy to support gay marriage in GB when you already have civil partnerships, which was created by the left center (Labour) of GB. And, the timing of the action in GB was as political as it was in the U.S. The Tories aren’t doing well there. So, they latch on to social issues to distract, just as the U.S. politicians do. I honestly find both gay conservatives unchallenging intellectually. As a general, if you got to leak information out, that means I am already a ahead of you. The structure of GB is different in both how bills get passed and in the politics of what is considered the center. I am not making excuse for President Obama. He’s a right winger. Just like the Tories are. The difference is that I don’t make excuse for anything in any right wing systems. I don’t make excuses for right wing politicians either. I understand why things happen even if they happened to be things I want like GB’s policies on gay rights. You should not assume that other people’s awareness of facts are lesser than you own. I know its easier to make that assumption given the society we live in, but not everyone is a clueless American.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      @the crustybastard: Do I really need to enumerate the ways that gay federal employees have fewer rights, benefits and privileges than heterosexual federal employees? Consider: Can a gay federal employee put her legal spouse on her health insurance policy?

      Try responding to the statement made. Obama has banned discrimination in hiring and firing. He also extended domestic partner benefits to those agencies (FDIC and SEC) where he can do so without Congress’ consent. For the rest of the Executive Branch, legislation is needed and the Adminstration supports such legislation.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Kurt:

      “Obama extended federal benefits” was a pathetic joke.

      Those fringe benefits were already available at a manager’s discretion, and there was no evidence that any gay person had ever been denied them. Ergo, Obama “extended benefits” that gay employees already had.

      As usual, he does zero but acts like he’s a hero.

      Why don’t you respond to the fact that Obama ignored a court’s decision allowing gay spouses to access to health insurance? That’d be a benefit worth having.

      And Obama’s claim to “support” equality legislation is utterly meaningless when he won’t lift a finger to make that legislation happen.

      Dec 7, 2011 at 8:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.