Obama Actually Promised to Do Nothing More About DADT. So Why Is Gay Inc. So Happy About It?

We knew Barack Obama was going to toss of a few crumbs during his State of the Union. Which he did. But what’s most telling about Obama’s words wasn’t what they said — an empty promise to “work with Congress and our military” to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell — but how Gay Inc. responded. You know, the organizations that have charged themselves with soliciting your donations in return for legislative action?

Let’s be clear: The president said absolutely. nothing. new. So it’s laughable that the Human Rights Campaign, in an email to supporters, called the news “breaking.” Also laughable: That HRC has a brand new, never before seen strategy to ensure legislative action. Pointing out its “new strategic campaign” only reminds us that HRC has, year after year, failed miserably.

In his State of the Union address just moments ago, President Obama pledged to work with the Congress and military this year to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

With the President’s leadership, now it is up to Congress to act. We’re rolling out a new strategic campaign to do exactly that – put an end to the discriminatory law that’s forced thousands of lesbian and gay members of the military to lie about who they are or face losing their jobs.

We’ve spent months designing a plan to pass legislation which repeals DADT. The plan will include organizing veterans across the country, generating media coverage in key markets and building focused campaigns in targeted states that will be critical to securing the final votes in the House and Senate.

And what does the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have to add? Here’s executive director Rea Carey with a muted, albeit non-complacent response:

While we know the State of the Union speech aims to present broad visions, the next time President Obama speaks to or about our community, he must provide a concrete blueprint for his leadership and action moving forward — this includes his willingness to stop the discharges happening on his watch until Congress can fulfill its responsibility to overturn the law. The time for broad statements is over. The time to get down to business is overdue. We wish we had heard him speak of concrete steps tonight.

Wait a second. Hasn’t Obama only delivered “broad statements”? And haven’t we already said he needs to show us his plan? And then need to issue “concrete steps”? Yes! Okay, NGLTF, then what are you going to do if Obama doesn’t do that? You don’t have a Plan B!

Moving on, Servicemembers United‘s exeutive director Alexander Nicholson chimed in:

Servicemembers United, the nation’s largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans and their allies, lauded the President’s historic remarks regarding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law in this year’s State of the Union address.

“Tonight, President Obama stepped up to the plate and made a firm commitment to work to finally end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in 2010,” said Alexander Nicholson, founder and Executive Director of Servicemembers United. “Although brief, his language was plain, his message was clear, and the outline of his strategy was smart. This effort will indeed be a challenge for our community, and the resistance of those who support discrimination in our armed forces should not be underestimated. But one thing is now clear – a full assault on this failed law is under way by those who recognize that discrimination is not an American value.”

We are LOLing aloud here, because if Servicemembers United considers his speech “stepping up to the plate,” they’re in for another year of inaction and platitudes. How’s that working out for the gay and lesbian troops so far?

Over at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents folks who get tossed of the armed forces because of DADT, there’s more cheerleading going on:

We applaud the President tonight for his call to Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year. We very much need a sense of urgency to get this done in 2010. We call on the President to repeal the archaic 1993 law in his defense budget currently now being drafted, that is probably the only and best moving bill where DADT can be killed this year. As Rep. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Gillibrand have made clear, this is the year to repeal the law. What is also needed is more attention and leadership to win repeal. The American public, including conservatives, is overwhelmingly with the commander in chief on this one.

Lambda Legal‘s chief Kevin Cathcart, meanwhile, rinses and repeats what everyone knows:

We have heard promises before about ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and we welcome the President’s statement tonight that the time has finally come to fulfill that promise. Very little has changed since Lambda Legal represented Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer 18 years ago after she was discharged for being a lesbian. Changing this discriminatory policy is long overdue.

And, almost not worth mentioning, except for the lunacy factor, is this one from Log Cabin Republicans spokesman Charles T. Moran:

President Obama is more concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists than he is about the rights of gay & lesbian Americans who are putting their lives on the line every day fighting to preserve peace & democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who operate small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy.

Is this really all we’ve got? With hundreds of millions of dollars in annual budgets, the reaction we’re getting from Gay Inc. on the president’s miserly comments — which he’s delivered before, to rounds of applause — is one of happiness? Applause? Lauding? He may want to be our ally, our buddy, but she’s shown us almost nothing to deserve that status.

A man among few, Richard Socarides — whose previous takedown of Obama on this very issue was soft-footed — had the balls to narrate the real situation we’re facing: “‘It’s great that the president is willing to renew his commitment to end the ban. But at this point, we need action and a timetable. Tonight we got neither.”

Yes, we’re pleased the president addressed DADT in his speech. (He did not address the many other discriminatory policies his administration currently defends, which these groups don’t appear to be mentioning.). But nothing in the SOTU, aimed specifically at LGBT Americans, was any more the the empty advocacy he’s made a habit of. And if Gay Inc. won’t demand action — or else — you can guarantee this process will be harder, longer, and more arduous than necessary.

(NB: This screenshot of the Joint Chiefs, as Obama issues his promise to repeal DADT, is priceless.)

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #gayinc. stories and more


  • Landis

    Recycled statements. Heard so many time before. Still waiting for these groups to grow a spine or balls whichever comes first.

  • erkki

    Why is Gay Inc praising this bullshit? Because once we can serve in the military and get married, their brand of gay politics will be dead.

  • Steve

    The ‘Gay, Inc’ lobbying organizations have a vested interest in slicing and dicing the legislation into the finest little pieces you have ever seen. They need to show some progress, on something, just before each new fund raising campaign. But, as soon as they run out of pieces the mission will have been accomplished, and then they will have to find real jobs. A huge number of little pieces helps to delay that eventual end. And, tiny little increments of progress on each piece, also helps to delay that eventual end.

    That’s why they were so strongly opposed to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case — That one case could make a large piece of progress in a relatively short 2-3 years. They had planned to stretch out the marriage-equality piece for 30-50 more years, by splitting it up into 50 separate one-state campaigns, and by getting each of the 1000+ rights addressed individually in each state, before starting work on Federal marriage-related rights. 50,000 pieces all at once might take a lot of pieces off of their 50-year agenda.

    DADT is scheduled to be the piece for this 4-year period. Hearings in 2010. Pass the house in 2011, but stall in the Senate. Pass the Senate in 2012 or 2013, maybe, but not in the same version as the House. With a little spirited opposition, they might even be able to stretch it into the next presidents term, and continue raising money from veterans for another four years.

    All of this political noise is useful, but not for the reasons that everyone seems to think. The noise and public relations campaigns that the “Gay, Inc.” organizations put out is useful because it helps to push civil-rights forward in the COURTS, not because they have any ability to actually get anything passed through the legislature. That may be changing gradually, but it will take another generation.

    Congressmen (at both State and Federal levels) are “politicians”. They are in the business of “polling”. They count people, and vote the way the majority tells them to vote. Or, perhaps more realistically, they count money, and vote they way the money tells them to vote. The right-wing “conservative” churches have both more people and more money than we do. Hence, they own the politicians. That may be changing gradually, as more churches begin to look at gay people and see human beings instead of monsters, but it will take at least another generation.

  • reason

    Actually the Joint Chiefs had that expression during the entire speech. Like the soldier from West Point said, when the commander is speaking its our job to listen. Applause and emotional responses are unbefitting of a soldier especially during a speech by the Commander in a formal setting; leave the Joe Wilson responses to an uncouth congress. Queerty wasting no time in casting the entire debate in a negative light, trying to portray the Joint Cheifs as against us and magnifying enemies of the movement while drowning out supporters to make Joe 6-pack think that America is against us so he should be to.

    What do you expect the President to use his entire SOTU address to lay out the policy on DADT? Right after the address a senior adviser stated that the President has stated that he intends to repeal DADT during his campaign and several times last year. He is going to begin a process starting right away to do that, and in the coming days and weeks ahead he is going to outline for the public specifically how he is going to do that: the adviser then goes on to say she was heartened by the applause received in the chamber behind that.

    So I don’t see what is laughable about the president reinforcing his promise and stating that he is going to put focus on this right away and lay out a policy in the coming days. Now queerty is trying to discourage the gay community into thinking that repeal is just a gimmick thus they should just head home and cry in their pretzels, thus aiding the enemy. The administration responded positively to a positive reception on his comment: in order for the administration to continue to receive positive reinforcement the gay community is going to have to get out there and work like the tea party activist did for the GOP to get our message out, thus providing cover for congress, and the President. Attacking the President will get us nothing except for media coverage stating that the gay community is angry with the president. If that is the case his supporters will just say screw them, but if the media sees a positive and vociferous collective supporting the presidents effort to repeal the law that is what they will cover providing positive reinforcement to the Congress and Obama, emboldening are allies and people that don’t really care about this issue but support the democratic agenda. With health care the administration had a messaging problem, and allowed the tea party to hijack the message and sour the debate. Why don’t we hijack the message and put a positive spin on repealing DADT and supporting the president, instead of attacking him and nearly sinking the agenda like the tea party.

  • wondermann

    God, shut up, Queerty!

  • J. Clarence

    The State of the Union is a symbolic speech to the entire nation, not a speech in front of a lot of friendly faces, like the HRC dinner or the speech at the WH in June. When a president steps up to the podium s/he is talking directly to all of the American people giving their take on the nature of things as well as outlining their agenda and where they want to take the country.

    It also directly addresses the people’s representatives (and judicial officers) and tells them all, in front of the entire country, that the stated course of action is what the president wants to see undertaken.

    So it elevates the issue to not being simply seen as a payment to a special interest group, Queerty, but rather part of the Obama Agenda up there along with education reform, etc etc. So it is a big deal symbolically in many respects, even though there was not any new news. So stop bitching about it.

  • Queertyisthebest

    No no, Queerty is right. When the President of the United States makes a public commitment to overturn DADT and calls on Congress to do so, the only OBVIOUS response is to cynically sneer and harrumph. That these gay organizations did not send out press releases saying, “Fuck you Obama. We don’t believe you. Go to hell”, obviously makes them traitors to gays and lesbians everywhere.

    We must remember that the only way to achieve equality is to tar and feather anyone trying to make a difference for not doing it all at once, the way we like it and using lots of exclamation points in every statement they release. Remember, Queerty has taught us that the only REAL advocates for equality are those of us with the bravery to whine like kindergardeners while doing nothing.

    Thank you Queerty, for really making a difference.


    Did anyone else pick up on the flaw in HRC’s statement? The one that makes it clear that they are lying and this so-called plan doesn’t actually exist yet?

    “We’ve spent months designing a plan to pass legislation which repeals DADT. The plan will include organizing veterans across the country”

    The plan “WILL INCLUDE”, as in future tense…not present tense which is how you would describe a plan/strategy that already exists.

    HRC needs to proof their public statements a little better…their bullshit is visable from space.



    p.s. Qweerty…can you PLEASE get rid of that stupid flash ad with the woman who drags some poor dope onto my screen to talk about their boring ass vacation plans?



  • nychris

    @J. Clarence: I’m totally on board with your sarcasm and frustration, QUEERTYISTHEBEST. Folks, imagine how much airtime DADT would have received had it been Adolf McCain making that speech.

    I wish I could say that it´s only ignorant breeders from fly’over states that end in a vowel who demand resolution and perfection immediately with every problem the government needs to solve. To paraphrase Hillary, it takes a village. We have one guy tryinig to lead the village of Congress, but unfortunately, they are a village of idiots.

  • Dirty Ole Man


    Thank You! That was brilliant! LMAO

  • jason

    The Democrats could have repealed don’t ask, don’t tell with their supermajority but, instead, they put us on the backburner. They are politically manipulative cowards who insult our intelligence and treat us as useful idiots.

  • rainfish2000

    I normally don’t do the old “cut and paste” (unless it is from my own blog, of course), but I found some interesting parallels to Truman and Obama. Of course, there are still more differences than similarities in many ways. Yet, both faced political opposition regarding doing away with discrimination in the military, and in general, against a disfavored minority — as well as trying to get health care reform passed. Both had recalcitrant Republicans to deal with (actually, Truman faced a Republican controlled congress on top of all of his other problems) and both had to deal with conservative Democrats.

    It’s worth a read (see below).

    [excerpt from Miller Center of Public Affairs – University of Virginia]

    “Truman also took a stand in 1947 on civil rights. His unsuccessful 1945 proposal to extend FEPC was, in part, an effort to court black voters so important to the Democratic Party. In the summer of 1947, Truman became the first President to address the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to whom he declared his forthright support of African-American civil rights. Speaking to a crowd of 10,000, Truman declared that “The only limit to an American’s achievement should be his ability, his industry, and his character.” A few months later, his blue-ribbon civil rights commission — which he had appointed in the wake of the failure to extend FEPC — produced a report titled, To Secure These Rights, a detailed and unabashed brief for civil rights legislation.

    Truman proceeded cautiously on this front, however. In early 1948, he sent his civil rights proposals to Congress, but did little to urge their passage. He also announced that he would issue executive orders — in the future — to desegregate the armed forces and to prohibit discrimination in the civil service. By early 1948, therefore, his support for civil rights was more rhetorical than substantive.

    Nonetheless, as he pursued this strategy with increasing skill throughout the year, Truman stood poised to win Democratic votes. In his 1948 State of the Union address, Truman again called for civil rights legislation, national health insurance, a housing program, and a higher minimum wage. On a cross-country train tour in early 1948 — dubbed a “whistle stop” tour by Republican Senator Robert Taft — Truman employed a new extemporaneous speaking style. Audiences warmed to this new public persona: the plain-spoken, hard-fighting Harry Truman from Missouri. Still, most political observers — and many Democrats — thought Truman would not win re-election in 1948.

    After a rousing Democratic National Convention in which he claimed the nomination of a divided party — southerners had bolted in favor of segregationist “Dixiecrat” Senator Strom Thurmond (SC) and some progressives had supported Truman’s former commerce secretary Henry Wallace – the President turned his attention to the Presidential campaign. He continued to run against the Republican Congress, even calling it into a special session to enact legislation. Truman also embraced more fully the cause of black civil rights by issuing executive orders desegregating the military and outlawing discrimination in the civil service. He won an upset victory that fall over his Republican opponent, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York.”

    ( For more details and the rest of this fine essay, see http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/truman/essays/biography/4 )

  • dontblamemeivotedforhillary

    Keep the purses closed, girls! Democrats will have to go it alone until DADT and a draft of a Gay Civil Rights Bill for Equality and repeal of DOMA. It’s not too much to ask, in fact, it’s not enough! In context, gays are dying here after being afforded second-class status and paying a higher tax rate for it. The interesting note is that Willie Brown on Chris Matthews was sending out the alarm bells to the African-American Democrats that they could well lose their other most loyal voting bloc because of inaction on Hate and Persecution towards us except to add Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to Hate Crimes laws. Doesn’t look well in the course of history for a group of people to be denied tax breaks for the middle class just because they endure second class status and mentioning ENDA would have signified a renewed effort for Gay Rights. Gay issues aside, Barack probably rescued himself from the brink which will embolden his own party, like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to challenge him on Marriage Equality and constituent’s kitchen sink issues like Civil Rights Equality for All and legislative non-discrimination protections for same-gender loving Americans and their families.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    They’ve lost my vote and my cash. It would be interesting to mail all of our Obama Tee shirts to the White House, signifying that we didn’t just fall off of turnip trucks. Heaps of “hope” would need to be trucked away to the Starvation Army.

  • swarm

    @ #10 Chris “We have one guy tryinig to lead the village of Congress, but unfortunately, they are a village of idiots.”

    I think you have that backwards. Obama is a tool of the village politicians. You’re suspending disbelief if you’re saying they suported him KNOWING he was far left with whatever postions he held (including being anti-gay marriage) and now they are punking out.

    They all knew that good people would believe anything he said even though logic dictates otherwise. He is a creation of speechwriters, as Bubba said “This is the biggest fairy tale”. It’s the old game of good cop bad cop. HE and THEY set it up so they all can have plausible denyability.

    This guy continues to say one thing and do the exact opposite and/or speak faux impotence. Blame Holder, blame Pelosi blame minority Republicans who had NO POWER except tv and radio airways…blame everyone else.

    I know it’s heartbreaking but people really need to take a critical examination of HIM along with congress. He is right in the middle of the liars. Do you actually BELIEVE that he is fighting for anything other than big government and societal control? What part of the past year did you miss? We already know he’s not in favor of gay marriage even though posters here claim otherwise. Like he’s secretly for it but “can’t admit it in public”. Yeah right.

    The sad truth is, Obama has screwed up the National Security issue in so many ways. This is the jeopardy for gays in the military NOT Congress.

    He leads off with saying they won’t use the term terrorist anymore but some convoluted crap “human caused disaster” Napolitano not even knowing what she was talking about saying “terrorists” come from canada or some nonsense.

    That went over great. Then… the bullshit phony campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Was he that naive that he didn’t see the complexity of it? Over a year later and crickets are chirping. A stupid idea/campaign promise that detracted from more important issues.

    Now with the asshole underpants bomber and the ridiculous light weight treatment they gave him being so recent, it’s highly unlikely that the public will support any perceived de-stabilization of the military, no matter how unjust and stupid the current policy is. Oh then there’s the dumb idea to have terrorist trials in freaking NYC??? [never gonna happen LOL]

    In what world is the public going to trust “his” judgment now? And all of a sudden “terrorist” is back in the Presidential nomenclature. He’s acting like the lightweight he always was. Ideologue.

    I sorta think until employment and marriage rights are passed, the military issue will not be moving. It’s the cart before the horse perhaps.

    He is vapid imo. It’s ok to be confused, guys. We had the same sinking feeling when Carter was in office.

  • terrwill

    Don’t know how I tagged “read more” also………. : P

  • Brian NJ

    Why would the HRC give the President another pass? I am suspecting corruption. Something is suspicious.

    It is just shocking that HRC would say that the president has done what he can do, now it is up to Congress to act. It is hard to believe that they don’t know the basics of how the agenda is set. The President and Congress work together to set the order of the agenda. If the President and Rahm Emanuel want something high on the list, they get it, and if they want something to go to bottom of the list, they get that too. JUST FUCKING INCREDIBLE.

    Didn’t they follow all the reports where Congress has stated it must check with the Administration to get a timeline for a bill to be heard? Didn’t they see the recent report that the White House told Levin to postpone the DADT hearing?

    The president is the one who has to move Congress by insisting that it get done telling his staff to make sure the Congress gets it done this year.

    Really, the HRC should be SHUT DOWN. That is gross incompetence.

    And they should have issued a statement that the President must suspend the discharges while this is being done.

  • Robert, NYC

    Log Cabin Republicans spokesman Charles T. Moran:

    “President Obama is more concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists than he is about the rights of gay & lesbian Americans who are putting their lives on the line every day fighting to preserve peace & democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who operate small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy.”

    A bit rich considering the GOP has done NOTHING on equality except for a meager handful who signed on to ENDA legislation that still has not passed. I can’t name one piece of legislation it has authored, co-authored or sponsored other than that, can you? The GOP doesn’t even believe in full equality for gays and if it did, why hasn’t it spoken up during the conventions and campaigns? Why hasn’t the leader of the Log Cabiners not been given time to address the convention?

  • swarm

    #14 @rainfish2000 “(actually, Truman faced a Republican controlled congress on top of all of his other problems) and both had to deal with conservative Democrats.”

    Wait. “Dealing with conservative Democrats” is sorta pejorative, no? They are charged with representing their districts. Or do you only expect representation of your district on the issues YOU agree with?

    A more accurate view might be “conservative citizens”. Blame voter apathy not the handful of conservative Dems (even though I can’t stand most politicians, I’m sticking up for them here).

    The conservative Dems are freaking out because they know Obama has screwed everything up by charging full speed ahead with the most aggressive big-government bankrupting intrusive initiatives in history. Nobody here even mentions cap & tax. Case in point it’s not a gay issue but it’s a large part of the freakout.

    Obama interviewed he’d rather be a one term Pres than ‘whatever (I forget). He’s going to get his preference there’s no doubt in my mind.

    Ya’ll better get started naming his successor. Perhaps Hillary but I think she’ll have battle fatigue by then and be too old for the media to support.

  • Tom NYC

    Why are you guys so hard on Obama, he said he will tackle this issue and I believe him. But he has national issues to resolve first, there are priority and we should understand that.

  • Brian NJ

    No, Tom, protecting veterans is a top priority so we can fight wars. He is not too busy to hand us a simple repeal. A REPEAL is not complex legislation requiring budgets and merging bills, or an overhaul of anything. DADT is a moral stain on the nation that must be wiped clean before gays can move forward for the president.

    It must be done NOW because NOW the Democrats control that entire legislative agenda, and after 2010 it may never happen.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    “DOMA”is what he said as well, during the campaign that secured my vote. DADT is easy to undo because everyone agrees it’s a bad policy.

  • Brian NJ

    How is it that the HRC has a lower standard of action for the President than the President himself? THAT is gross incompetence. How can donors to HRC feel good about giving to the HRC, when they are actually fighting hard to LOWER THE BAR for Obama?

  • rf

    Well, it took Obama a year and Scott Brown to figure out that the national issue is jobs not healthcare. And the second issue is financial reform because that’s whats getting everyone who’s out of a job and/or a house, or close to it, mad. America is going to give him a second chance because we like him and we mostly want what he says to succeed. Unfortunately up til now, he has shown us that he is pro big business (Geitner was a huge mistake, Bernanke is worse) and unable to manipulate congress into passing his programs (tell us you want a public option or whatever and let the people know that Congress is killing babies when they don’t vote for it). Intimidation and goading are the only tools an independent, “for the people” Pres needs.

  • Tim W

    @reason: See you lose all credibility when you say the Joints Chief of Staff are supposed to sit and not applaude or express emotion where there are screen prints of them standing and applauding when the president talked about dealing with Iran.
    The problem the GLBT community has is President Obama has not shown one iota of leadership on this issue. He keeps deferring to Congress and then shrugs his shoulders and says well it’s that damn Congress. I really want to repeal it but I can’t do anything. The sad part is he can. The first step would be to temporarily halt the discharge of soldiers using stop loss. Second he would include the repeal in his budget which will come out on Monday. Third he will use his bully pulpit to make sure it is tied to the defense authorization bill giving it a much better chance.
    Now if I was a betting man my guess is he won’t include it in the budget he submits Monday. Then he will give a few more speeches about how he wants Congress to send him a bill without doing any arm twisting. Then a bill will not get through and he’ll throw up his arms and say I wanted a bill but they wouldn’t give it to me. After the Democrats get their asses handed to them in the mid term elections you won’t hear word one about GLBT issues until close to 2012 when money is needed and we’ll get more pretty speeches.

  • rf


    Saint Lucia: Situation of homosexuals; availability of support groups and state protection (2006-2009)

    The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) indicates that homosexual acts are illegal in Saint Lucia (ILGA May 2009, 35; see also GlobalGayz n.d.; Canada 1 June 2009, Sec. 8). According to Section 133 of Saint Lucia’s Criminal Code, No. 9 of 2004 (Effective 1 January 2005):

    1) A person who commits buggery commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for –

    a) life, if committed with force and without the consent of the other person

    b) ten years, in any other case.

    2) Any person who attempts to commit buggery, or commits an assault with intent to commit buggery, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

    3) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anus by a male person with another male person. (ILGA May 2009, 35; Saint Lucia 2004, Sec. 133)

  • Robert, NYC

    Tom NYC, in the absence of the wars, the economic downturn, unemployment, health care reform, do you really believe the Democrats would have given repeal of DADT and DOMA in that order any priority? I don’t. Obama doesn’t have the confrontational skills to even take on the GOP, instead caves in to them and the handful of mealy-mouthed conservadems in his own party. He hasn’t demonstrated any leadership and none when it comes to our rights. We don’t even have ENDA passed. We’re on the very bottom rung of the ladder in the pecking order of things. That’s always been the case and I don’t see that changing, no matter what other issues are deemed a priority by this administration or the next. They’re only interested when it comes to elections. Well, this November, they’re in for a rude awakening after the Massachusetts fallout. No longer can they take our votes or money for granted. The sooner they learn that the better. Either deliver first or kiss our support goodbye. Why should we keep on blindly supporting them in the voting booth or in the pocket book every time an election rolls around when they deliver NOTHING substantial, year after year once elected? Its madness and we need to break that habit and get tough with them once and for all.

  • rainfish2000

    @swarm: “The conservative Dems are freaking out because they know Obama has screwed everything up…”


    No, the “conservative” Democrats in Congress are freaking out because they added poison pills to the Health Care Bill while greasing their own palms with the Health Insurance Cabal’s Extortionist Lobby money, and now they are afraid of paying the piper in November. In most of their home districts, the “Public Option” was favored by as high as 65% of the voters, and by much large percentages by their own Democratic voting constituents.

    Remember, it was the wipe-out of “conservative” Democrats during the Clinton era that brought the Republicans back to power in the 1994 Congressional elections. Most “liberal” Democrats retained their seats. “Conservative” Democrats (ie Sam Nunn, and company) sided with Republicans on DADT and DOMA. You can always count on their DINO duplicity to sabotage the Democratic party and its agenda when the Democrats are in power.

    Maybe we should take a clue from the Republicans and have a ideological “purity” test for Democratic candidates as well. Anti-progressive Democrats in Congress are just self-serving skunks at the picnic in the Democratic Caucus. It’s time to fumigate.

  • Robert, NYC

    27 RF, I have to agree with you. Gaithner and Bernanke were very bad choices as well as Rahm Emmanuel who is against marriage equality too. Why he would pick the first two who were involved with the economic fallout under Bush and part of the problem? Secondly, Emmanuel was also a very bad choice and someone who is against our full equality. Check Matt Taibi’s excellent article on the corruption in the Obama’s administration and the people he consorts with in the link below.


  • Sam

    @Queertyisthebest: I was going to reply, but you’ve said it better than I ever could. The only thing I have to add is that if anyone thinks people work for these activist orgs because they pay super high salaries and not because they are dedicated to achieving equality, you seriously need to get your head out of your ass. I know the EDs make six figures, but the rank and file most certainly do NOT and make a sacrifice by taking a lower salaries than they could get in the private sector just so they can win rights for you ungrateful twits.

    Seriously, what are you whiny bitches doing to win our rights besides complaining on a blog that the people who are doing the REAL work aren’t doing it right? That’s what I thought. Fucking ingrates.

  • Kieran

    Over 30 nations around the world allow gay soldiers to serve openly including Canada, France, South Africa, Germany, Ireland, Israel*, Italy, UK, Brazil—–but not the United (with liberty and justice for all) States. Doesn’t that make you proud to be an American?

    *Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”

  • Tim W

    @Sam: Please they aren’t doing the real work. They are part of the problem by giving cover to politicians who claim to be on our side but do little to advance our goals. I have yet to see the HRC criticize the president for his lack of leadership.
    Instead they put out an e-mail saying they have this great new plan to get DADT repealed. Shouldn’t they already have had this in place. Unfortunately Gay Inc. has lost touch. They have gotten to cozy in their relationship with the DNC and the president. What we should do is what a lot have proposed which is to stop giving to the DNC, DCCC, Organization for America, etc. until they show real movement in the rights of GLBT. Nothing speaks more than withholding money. I add HRC to this until they are willing to do some real fighting instead of giving cover to politicians.


    Wow bitches be naggin,

    What were you expectin? Obama to strip his suit off and reveal his rainbow colored boxers? I really dont see how he has killed your movement. Becos repeal of DADT and DOMA has not happened after his first year in office…wow the guy is a bastard!!

    Obama is not a machine. He is doing the best he can. It sucks that things are not moving as quickly as they should but he can only handle so much. LET US BE REAL HERE.

    1.Marriage: More than half of this counrty is vehemently against this. Yet you expect Obama to use the power of what to repeal this law. My question is which votes do you think will do this? Dems may have the majority but they are not enough to push this. The current prop 8 trial a la spectacle is a joke. An instrument the anti gay marriage side is going to use to kick gay rights in the jewels. I am so pissed at this trial. The timing is wrong. The arguments are laughable. At no point as the pro gay side proved whether prop 8 was unconstitutional. All they are doing is reminding us that gays have it rough..we know. The anti 8 side knows. Barack knows. What is the point of this? How does this affect whether a ballot vote was unconstitutional? Should this not have been done before it went to ballot? Should gays not have done all this during their campaign time? They went petitioning to Brad Pitt and the celebs instead of talking to everyday people and they lost. Now they are whining..majority should not vote on minority. If prop 8 had failed what will have been said then? Is not the same majority that would have said no to 8? You gus are not serious at all. You lost fair and square. DEAL WITH IT.

    This case will lose. If not for anything, but for the fact that in a real democracy if something is put to vote and it wins or loses, it should stand. the reason for it winning or losing is completely irrelevant. I mean cmon. Obama and Mccain..some voted for Mccain because he was white and some for Obama because he was black. What the hell has that got to do with who won? The point is both sides campaigned and got a chance to win their public and one side lost.
    2. DADT: People support this. I can see this actually being repealed. Give him time.Executive order to stop discharges…didnt he offer to do this? Why was this rejected by gay politicians again? Im confused.

    Generally maybe if we spent less time pushing negative energy to his administration we might get results.

    God, you guys bitch too much.

  • Jon Martin

    @erkki: NAACP dead even after they could serve and be married to other races? I support our Gay Inc. We should call on Gay Inc. to plan a REAL demonstration.

    I think the problem with Gay Inc. is the problem that is within us. We don’t have the time to have REAL demonstrations so we just throw money at policy makers with a bit of results.

    If we want to see rights we need to get pissed off and get are asses to Washington to show everyone how strong we really are. We need a week long protest that shocks the nation, not that weekend bullcrap we did last year.

  • Sam

    @Tim W: You should really learn not to use “Gay Inc” and HRC as synonyms. ‘Cause I’d agree with you if you said HRC. But a lot of other groups – especially state groups – are getting a shit ton of progress with MUCH smaller amounts of money than the (mostly) useless HRC raises.

    And even people who work for HRC aren’t doing it for the mythical fat paycheck the bitches on here have dreamed up.

  • dab107

    I am waiting to hear the President call for full equality for all members of the GLBT community. I’m tired of Americans voting state by state as to whether we should have the same rights as other Americans. I’m tired of looking at it law by law. I’ve been waiting for a President who calls for full equality for all Americans in all areas. And I’m still waiting.

  • Cam

    No. 7 · Queertyisthebest said…
    No no, Queerty is right. When the President of the United States makes a public commitment to overturn DADT and calls on Congress to do so, the only OBVIOUS response is to cynically sneer and harrumph.


    No, Queerty didn’t Sneer and Harrumph….the FIRST tem times that Obama made these commitments…you remember, in the campaign? They didn’t start sneering when we were told that he didn’t have time and was too busy working on importnat legislation, they didn’t even really sneer when Obama mocked the gays outside an appearnce by laughing and saying “What promise are they talking about?” in response to signs asking him to keep his promise. They are now mocking him because he is saying the same things he’s said before, with no action. It is no different than when a roomate tells you for the 20th time that they will clean up their own dishes. You may have believed them the first few times, but when they never have, you would be a fool to get excited and believe them the 20th time they’ve made the promise. But then again, you are much more loyal to the Dem’s and the President than you are to your own civil rights aren’t you?

  • Robert, NYC

    No. 40, Dab10…..you’ll have a long wait for that to happen. Not under this administration. He’s already made it very clear, he’s NOT for full equality during the campaign to elect him. What he is for are civil unions at the federal level and not necessarily with every right and privilege of marriage. So what he’s saying is he believes that legal segregation is fine, just don’t upset his religious constituent bigots. Their feelings and beliefs are far more important than our equality. In addition, he actually believes that civil marriage is equitable with religious marriage so he uses that to justify his objection to our right to marry so that he doesn’t lose his religious base, especially the southern baptists. He’s hardly a progressive and not a true friend of our people as some think he is. He and many in his party only want us when elections roll around. Well, for me personally, those days are over. You fuck with me, I’ll fuck you over and over. That message needs to get out to them, especially him. There will be others here who’ll say, well…..if you don’t support the dems, you won’t get anywhere. Shit on that after four defeats in California, Maine, New York and New Jersey! Where were they? Pretty silent!

  • reason

    @Tim W: You are wrong

    Where is the link showing the Joint Chiefs applauding anything about Iran? The Joint Chiefs of Staff is impartial toward anything regarding policy just like the Supreme Court which was stoic during the entire speech except for Alito’s Joe Wilson moment when he shook his head and mouthed off breaking centuries of decorum. The only time Joint Chiefs clapped was in support of the president’s wife and the president the commander started clapping first. The civilian Secretary of Defense did clap when Obama mentioned DADT repeal.

    When did the president say “I really want to repeal it but I can’t do anything?” You have to stop being dishonest. Enacting stop loss would be stupid; it would only serve as an excuse for congress to punt actual and consequential repeal down the road. Why would he put DADT repeal in the budget? I believe the proper place for DADT repeal is in the Defense Appropriations Bill. Instead of being cynical and making terrible prognostications, channel that energy into positive action like calling representatives and supporting the presidents civil rights agenda.


    “Likewise tonight, ABC’s Martha Raddatz notes the justices are not the only ones who resist any urge to clap in order to maintain the appearance of neutrality. Viewers may have noted tonight that the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not clapping either, in response to any remark in the State of the Union they consider to be policy issues. The only clapping that the chiefs did tonight was for First Lady Michelle Obama and supporting the troops when they come home. However, Defense Secretary Gates, who is a civilian and a political appointee unlike the joint chiefs,, was seen clapping during the president’s remarks about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal.”

  • Josh_Texas

    It is about FUND RAISING for HRC and the rest of Gay Inc. It has ALWAYS been about raising money.

    Gay Inc. is just like the Democratic Party. It’s almost entirely about money. If you think it’s about equality – you’re not very bright.

  • Josh_Texas

    @Jon Martin: You made the dumbest comment:

    “If we want to see rights we need to get pissed off and get are asses to Washington to show everyone how strong we really are.”

    A March or organized protesting (expressions of anger) have NOT worked in the last 40 years. Wake up, we’re smarter than that.

    We need to let go of politics and find another way to achieve our full equality. Politics will not result in our equality. People must do that.

  • Tim W

    @reason: Please you want to give the president a free pass. Why do you think it has languished in Congress? It’s because other than giving pretty speeches President Obama has done nothing to further the bill. In fact he has delayed or slapped down congressman who have tried. Why in the world did he ask for the DADT hearings to be delayed if all he was going to do is say that line in the SOTU? What purpose did it serve other than to stall and delay? Let me say again it needs to be in the budget submitted. It sends a signal he wants it as part of the Defense Appropriation Bill. That’s why you include it there to show your attention. While doing these steps he should suspend the discharge of GLBT soldiers. It isn’t an either or.

  • B

    No. 4 · reason wrote, “Actually the Joint Chiefs had that expression during the entire speech. Like the soldier from West Point said, when the commander is speaking its our job to listen. Applause and emotional responses are unbefitting of a soldier especially during a speech by the Commander in a formal setting; leave the Joe Wilson responses to an uncouth congress.”

    … the QUEERTY link to two images showed the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff applauding regarding Obama’s comments about Iran, and in a different thread, I noted that they also applauded when Obama talked about increasing support for soldiers returning home.

    So, it seems their “listening but not applauding” is applied somewhat selectively – if they are going along with ending DADT, it is not like they think it is the best thing since sliced bread.

  • reason

    @Tim W:

    Just found the clip http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-28955 the picture is from the president talking about securing loose nuclear weapons. When he speaks of Iran at 104:29 they are all sitting down two are clapping the other was stoic. Securing nuclear weapons is apolitical as well as consequence for Iran although the later is a gray area and they would have been better off showing no emotion to avoid violating decorum.

    As for free pass if you think a person is going to walk into the White House march into the pentagon surrounded by a bunch of strangers and shout out orders and have it turn out swell you are delusional. Getting to the point were the Secretary of defense and the Generals are ready to move forward takes several months of planning and intense negotiations; that is why things have languished, add on top of that two wars, a economy headed into a depression, health care reform, and a presidential transition. Both Obama’s were trying to shape their relationship with the military from the second that they walked in. As for delaying hearings it was done for a reason so he could let the nation know that this is going down now and he is committed, and as is being reported he is working on it and will have plans emerging in the coming days. Some things are already being released.


  • reason


    Then can applaud selectively but if is political it is against decorum. You are correct though if it was political or not they are not likely enthused by repealing DADT, it probably took a valiant effort to get them this far and they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming if we want to get past the finish line.

  • PopSnap

    Uh, they aren’t allowed to applaud unless it is very general, bipartisan, “Hurrah USA, USA” stuff. How is “i want to stop nuclear weapons” NOT one of those things?

    Also, I’m going to give Obama another chance. I honestly dont care about healthcare reform anyway at this point; it’s getting so old. If he enacts financial reform, passes a SUCCESFULL job bill, and repeals DADT he’ll have my vote for re-election.

  • Brian NYC

    The Repeal of DADT cannot pass the US Senate. End of story.

  • Republican

    @Tim W:

    That’s Reason for you.

  • reason


    Do you mean secure loose nuclear weapons?

  • dontblamemeivotedforhillary

    @Popsnap has a limited world view just because he’s unemployed and on medicaid and gave up on hope for an equal America for all!

    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Shower (for 9-12 months) comrades!

Comments are closed.