Barack Obama played the consummate host yesterday, welcoming GLBTs to “their” White House. For a dozen or so minutes he delivered prepared remarks to 200 invited guests, reiterating some of the same gay rights promises he made during his campaign — only now he wasn’t courting the gay vote, but rather reacting to harsh criticism and demands for action that have tarnished his first months in office. The president is deeply aware of how the temperature of the gay community has turned against him, which explains why his staff pulled together the reception — which was technically a Stonewall 40th anniversary celebration — in just a week’s time. But just because Michelle stood by him in a dress any gay can appreciate does not mean he’s smoothed everything over.
In order to do that, he’ll need to make good on his promises. This much we know.
Obama’s gay rights defenders point to a timeline: In office for fewer than five months, there’s no way any president could enact all the equality legislation we want from him. Just wait a little longer, they say, and he’ll get the job done. Yesterday, the president made that same case for himself. On Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama said: “I’m confident, we’ll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term.”
But for a president so self-aware and so in tune with messaging and the media, he remains out of touch with our most basic demands — one of which derives from his horrible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (i.e. we’d like him to apologize).
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.
Our singular demand remains this: Full equality under the law in all aspects of life. But even the most cynical will have to admit a finger snap cannot accomplish all that in this bureaucratic democracy. So until he “works with Congress” to repeal DOMA and DADT, enact ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Act, we’d like what’s possible: Stop-gap measures to prevent gay soldiers from being discharged and a more reasoned approach to “defending” current laws on the books.
The president did hand us one of our demands: more transparency. The great orator has been painfully silent on our rights since taking office. Only when pressed, or as a PR maneuver, has he spoke to us directly about his plans to bring about this “change” he’s spoken so much about. If Obama truly believes he cannot grant us our civil rights overnight, the least he could do is lay out his plans for how he’ll get things done. Yesterday, he moved in that direction.
But the president remains attached to — comfortable with? — a timeline that could span more than three years to get all this done. By the end of his first term to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? We’re closing in on 300 gay soldiers lost to the policy already; how many more must go before the Pentagon’s cronies come down on the side of right?
Lost in the conversation — amidst worthy debates about DADT, DOMA, and ENDA — is that we still have a president who does not believe in marriage equality. He thinks civil unions are good enough. Maybe he just campaigned on that notion to win votes, but until he says otherwise, we must take him at his word. And while he says he’s committed to repealing DOMA, which prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage, he thus leaves our ability to wed the ones we love in the hands of the states. This was not good enough for interracial marriage. It is not good enough for same-sex marriage, either. Arguments based in religious belief, or the sanctity of a word, never were adequate; they still are not.
A man who proclaims himself a “fierce advocate” for our rights and equality does not get to give himself that title when he refuses to go all the way.
Like many gay rights activists, Obama speaks much about the importance of convincing more than our legislators that gays deserve equal rights — but that our neighbors need talking too as well. It is they who need their attitudes changed. Yesterday the president told us, “For if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet.”
Mr. Obama lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Please continue knocking on his door.
Forrest
The people that don’t embrace us and don’t believe we have the same right to disagree with them and live our lives equally under civil law……are not “good and decent”.
Some minds change but not the majority. Most racists stay racist and the same goes for homophobes. I don’t care what people think our main goal should remain making homophobia as condemnatory as racism rightly is. Being openly homophobic is becoming less socially acceptable, concurrent progress encoding this ethic into law needs to speed up.
Everything else aside the first thing I thought about watching yesterday’s reception was how fabulous Michelle looked.
Style above all.
Of Course.
ducdebrabant
I agree with the article. All the President did was reiterate positions. The last time the White House said they were “working with the Pentagon,” the Pentagon said it was the first they’d heard of it. We’ll see what they say this time.
As a speech, it was perfect (hardly a surprise from this President), laden with the “empathy” he says he wants on the Supreme Court. He actually walked the audience (not the one in the room, but the broadcast audience) through the pre-Stonewall situation and talked about the riots themselves and their significance. I don’t recall Bill Clinton every making the Stonewall commemoration a teaching moment.
He likened the GLBT civil rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle (by my count) three times. This may seem like a no-brainer but it infuriates a lot of his black base.
He made a glancing remark that might or might not have been taken as a criticism of some of the arguments in the DOMA brief (about which he has never specifically commented), but as there were no reporters to ask questions, that will not be clarified.
Words and images do matter, and these words and images matter a lot more, since Obama has avoided the subject of gay rights like the plague since the inauguration. The closest he has come to acknowledging either our victories or our defeats at the state level was a snickery joke at a dinner about he and David Axelrod going to Iowa to “make it official.”
But nothing has changed. He has patted our hands nicely, given us some visibility and face time, made no real news, offered no new specifics, and I know nothing more about what the White House is actually doing on these issues, as opposed to what its positions are, what it aspires to, what it desires, what it envisions, etc. He predicts we’ll be happier by the end of his administration. I should certainly hope so. But he didn’t promise during the campaign simply to make us happier.
timncguy
for African Americans, it was the actual enactment of civil rights legislation and the resulting “forcing” of integration tha finally brought about the movement of individuals to finally believe in full equality. And, for those that still didn’t believe, it at least pushed them into the darkness where they dare not voice their racist crap in public.
When civil rights laws were put in place the majority of the country did NOT APPROVE of those laws.
But, we are being told we need to accomplish this change in national mindset BEFORE we get the rights we deserve.
It’s a completely different standard being applied to us.
timncguy
@ducdebrabant: actually I thought the only important comment from his speech was when he challenged congress to take the repeal of DADT as an URGENT issue.
So, we should be putting pressure on congress to call his bluff and act urgently. There is no reason, now that Obama has called on them to do so, that congress shouldn’t have the DADT repeal legislation on his desk to sign within a couple of months.
ducdebrabant
“The people that don’t embrace us and don’t believe we have the same right to disagree with them and live our lives equally under civil law……are not ‘good and decent’.
I feel you. It does remind one a little of Eisenhower’s cajolement of Earl Warren on the subject of school desegregation: “These are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to
see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in
school alongside some big overgrown Negroes.”
However, let’s not forget that many of those Obama is describing are, or were, our own parents. It’s a very common experience of gay people to grow up in loving — but not otherwise accepting — homes. Many of those parents start evolving in their views the minute we come out.
Many other people start doing the same thing as soon as they get to know some gay people. Everybody’s on a different trajectory, starts in a different place, and has different experiences. What keeps people from being more “good and decent” to gay people may be a comparative absence of experience.
It’s not that we have to earn our rights, or that anybody is right to deny them. It’s only that we shouldn’t lump those who aren’t yet accepting but might be in time with those who never will be. It’s a spectrum. Not everybody who says they don’t “agree” (don’t you love that syntax?) with homosexuality is going to join the American Family Association.
And some members of the American Family Association may well end up in PFLAG. This stuff happens. Obama’s just telling us we’ll teach better if we approach some of our adversaries with civility , patience and a belief in their perfectability.
timncguy
@ducdebrabant: and we need to keep reminding Obama that the teaching and movement of mindsets was NOT A REQUIREMENT for civil rights legislation as it applied to African Americans.
timncguy
@ducdebrabant: besides, what Obama failed to acknowledge was that on EVERY issue we are fighting for, with the exception of marriage, the majority is already with us.
So, there is no reason for the foot dragging on DADT, ENDA, Hate Crimes and changes to immigration policy.
The majority also supports federal benefits for gays is legally recognized relationships. So, that translates to repeal of the portion of DOMA which prohibits federal benefits.
ducdebrabant
@timncguy: You make a good point, but I don’t think the President is being quite as absolute as all that. Sometimes the chicken comes first, sometimes the egg. We all know that heterosexuals are much more likely to be accepting if they know somebody gay. That’s why the most effective thing we’ve ever done en masse is simply coming out to our neighbors and families and co-workers. Another effective thing is attain more visibility in the media — forming GLAAD to get rid of defamatory images like those on “Marcus Welby” and encourage more realistic or positive images of gay people. Such things prepare the ground.
It was the same with the black civil rights movement. Yes, a lot of attitudes didn’t shift until they no longer had the support of the law. On the other hand, a lot of attitudes shifted because of cultural shifts, long before the law changed. When Ziegfeld added Bert Williams to the Follies, it was seismic. Booker T. Washington said Bert Williams did more for black people than he had. Quite a few southern white people who feared de-segregation accepted it more readily thanks to their admiration for Sidney Poitier and Nat King Cole.
No, we shouldn’t have to wait till DOMA repeal is actually popular to have DOMA repealed. But let’s not neglect any opportunity to make repeal go more smoothly, to gain more defenders and make more friends. Let’s dispel the myths by going where the myths are. Let’s reassure those who actually need the reassuring. Let’s preach to the OTHER guy’s choir, not just our own.
Maybe the President was giving himself an excuse for slow going, but I’d prefer to think he means (and I agree) that leaders teach change as well as effect it. This man has always understood the importance of effective and eloquent advocacy, and he has always spoken from a posture of respect, and even sometimes deference, to those who disagree. He’s done much better among Republicans (the rank and file, not the officeholders) than anybody ever thought he would.
ducdebrabant
@timncguy: Very true, if you read the polls. Members of Congress, however, are vulnerable to the more passionate constituents who organize and vote, more than they are necessarily reassured by the opinions of a majority that does neither. That’s why we need to energize our friends and disarm our enemies. Yes we have a broad agreement on ending DADT, and even a narrower margin of agreement among self-described conservatives. But a lot of legislators are fearful that our enemies in their states and districts are more passionate than our friends. If you took a poll in Mississippi, or in a particular district in Mississippi, you might get a different picture than in the national polls. And that’s where some members of Congress run from.
M Shane
Queerty , when you say “good enough” , you are placing a value judgement right off on marriage as opposed to civil unions.
You speak as if you represented the gay community in this judgement . You don’t..
As a gay person ,who has worked a long hard time at defineing my identity, I believe that marrige is an inferior and homophobic (closeted) attempt to be like breeders, which we are not. I’m queer, and happy for it. I would want my own cerimony rep[resenting my own identity..
Marriage is for a breeding pair. A man and woman. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “I don’t know a lot of gay men who want to be’ the wife’ “.
Obama made himself clear a long time ago what his beliefs are regarding Civil Unions. He’s being fair by following that plan, and not inciting a religious war.
Cam
@M Shane: You said “Queerty , when you say “good enough” , you are placing a value judgement right off on marriage as opposed to civil unions.
You speak as if you represented the gay community in this judgement . You don’t..
As a gay person ,who has worked a long hard time at defineing my identity, I believe that marrige is an inferior and homophobic (closeted) attempt to be like breeders, which we are not. I’m queer, and happy for it. I would want my own cerimony rep[resenting my own identity..
Marriage is for a breeding pair. A man and woman. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “I don’t know a lot of gay men who want to be’ the wife’ “.”
________________________________________
But, and no insult intended, your opinion is irrelevent in this instance. It isn’t a matter of “What would I chose between these options?” It’s the fact that we do not have the options. It’s not “Am I going to get married?” It’s the problem of “How dare you tell me I can’t?”
Just because some women choose not to vote doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t have that right. Just because some gays would chose to do something differently doesn’t give people the right to deny us full equality under the law.
SM
Obama does more for the LGBT fight for equality just by doing this than the screeching hate filled bitches on Queerty ever will.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Celebrating-LGBT-Pride-Month/
TikiHead
Queerty, it must make you feel good to know your blog is thought important enough to warrant professional Obama apologists. That’s clout.
SM
@TikiHead:
It’s going to be fun to come back and laugh at all the people who were wrong about him and to weak to stick by him!
ducdebrabant
@M Shane: There is a difference between desiring marriage equality and desiring to be married. As a gay man, I find it unacceptable (in the long run; in the short run I’m willing to compromise) not to have both the equal protection of the laws and the dignities of every other citizen. The notion that the word “marriage,” let alone the legal advantages thereof, are to be denied me forever is completely a non-starter.
I would be happy enough to call ALL civil marriages civil unions, and let churches decide who can be “married” (in which case, gay people could get married in certain Episcopal churches, or at the Metropolitan Community Church), but heterosexuals would never accept what they’d consider a “downgrade” of their marriage licenses.
So that means that gay civil unions will have to be equal in every legal way to marriages, and eventually be called marriages as a legal term of art. That’s all.
That doesn’t mean my partner and I are going to have a ceremony on the beach in two white shantung dinner suits. We have no desire to. Nor have I any desire to be in the military or join the uniformed firefighter’s association or be a scoutmaster. But I won’t accept — just because I don’t want to do or be something — being told I MAY not do or be something.
Obama offers both a practical and religious objection to gay marriage. The practical one is that he thinks civil unions can be attained more widely and faster. Probably true. The religious one is his own belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. He’s got a lot of nerve. I absolutely don’t give a damn about his religious beliefs, and if they prevent his treating all citizens equally, maybe he shouldn’t be in office.
But he’s only there for eight years, and maybe our next Democratic President won’t throw his religion in my face.
TikiHead
Well i make an exception for SM — that creature’s behavior in comments here is certainly not professional. Or even adult or rational for that manner.
SM: when you call people ‘screeching hate filled bitches,’ you do realize you’ve sort of ceded the high ground, like, forever?
ducdebrabant
@SM: I don’t see anything “screechy” or “hate-filled” on this page.
TikiHead
Screeching hate-filled bitch — I mean SM:
I will be happy if Obama comes through for us – that’s the point of this whole discussion. Not too bright, are ya, SM?
SM
@ducdebrabant:
Nope…but the next time one of YOUR EQUALITY CAMPAIGNS sends me an e-mail asking for money AGAIN. The answer will be NO sent along with all the LIES and names I was called here by LGBT people in their posts.
TikiHead
SM: Pot kettle black. Please leave.
slider
No. 11 Cam
You said: “Marriage is for a breeding pair. A man and woman. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “I don’t know a lot of gay men who want to be’ the wife’ “.”
You better let an awful lot of str8 people know who are married that unless they are going to have children, then they must dissolve their marriages..You sound exactly like the moron John Kerry did when he uttered the same words in stating marriage is for procreation..I don’t see he and Teresa making any babbies.
Your comment is beyond the beyond…so that means str8s and Gays who have no children or choose not to have children or choose not to adopt are not permitted to marry?
Your reasoning lacks reason and logic and thought.
ducdebrabant
@timncguy: ” and we need to keep reminding Obama that the teaching and movement of mindsets was NOT A REQUIREMENT for civil rights legislation as it applied to African Americans.”
————-
I’ve no objection to reminding him, but again, I don’t interpret his remarks to mean that equal rights require popularity as a moral precondition. I too believe that equality for gay people is inevitable. It is part of the logic of the American experience. It is my country’s destiny, not just my own. But if I thought the President meant to do nothing until every mind changed, I’d be furious. I’m disappointed with him so far, but not THAT disappointed.
michael
I think we are seeing that we do have more power than we give ourselves credit for as LGBT’s. Our protests, our expressed anger and disappointment, our closing down the ATM’s is having an effect and I think that if we do not continue to speak loudly with whatever means we have that we are easily dismissed and forgotten. But we need to also remember that Obama does not stand with us on the right to marry and that bigoted view alone means that he is not 100% in our corner and so he will have to deal with that from us as long as he is in office. And to M. Shame who wants to remain special by seeing a special category for gay relationships be developed then let me say that for a huge amount of gay people (I don’t see any gay organizations lobbying for civil unions) we don’t need to be “special” and realize that not being “special” is a consequence of full equality. We can maintain our specialness as a culture and we don’t need anyone to legislate that for us. If “civil unions” are enacted then they should be enacted for everyone as well as a “marriage” option. If you don’t like marry then don’t get married and your welcome to pull a group together for the civil union part.
SM
@TikiHead:
POT VS KETTLE? Hardly…
This entire web site is dedicated to BASHING Obama. Every single news story is SPUN IN A NEGATIVE WAY TO BASH HIM.
BASH BASH BASH BASH
ducdebrabant
@SM: Your money is yours to give where you please. I left MoveOn during the primaries when they endorsed Obama (I was still for Hillary and so no need for them to endorse anybody). And I wrote to the White House that I’m not even writing a letter about healthcare reform or Sotomayor until they get serious about civil rights for gays. I’m behind all those who bailed out of the fundraiser last week. As one of our leaders said, the GayTM is closed. But if I had any money to spare (I don’t) I can see myself sending it to gay marriage advocates in California, or to the Empire State Pride Agenda here in New York.
TikiHead
No SM. We’re discussing his policies, and expressing a desire to see him follow through. As I said before, I will be happy if-when he does follow through on his promises to LGBT.
Now SM, I want you to do something for me: pry the caps lock key off your keyboard, and swallow it.
Robert, NYC
Make no mistake, Obama supports partial equality for LGBT people when he declared support for civil unions at the federal level, or legal segregation. Its a crock of shit when he states he’s for full equality of LGBT people.
He states that the federal government should not be involved in defining marriage and he needs to be reminded, over and over, it most certainly is involved because it confers more than 1,000 rights and privileges only to married straight couples. If they weren’t married, they wouldn’t be entitled to them. If that’s not federal involvement, I don’t know what is. Why do we tolerate this shit and let him get away with it?
Dennis
@SM:
Have noticed you on the site “Taking on all comers” and singlehandedly attemting to beat down many at one time, and just wanted to make sure that you know that Queerty IS NOT an average representation of the LGBT community…
Many of us (myself included) ARE dissapointed with Obama’s slower than desired timeframe for making real change happen on our issues, rather than token gestures and lip service…and 100% support the increase in pressure on him and the Dems to make something REAL happen, but this site IS amonsgt the screechiest, and most Obama-bashing gay sites existant. Just know what you’re dealing with here, and don’t judge all gays by the myopic gay-only focus of this site.
This site is a gay bubble, where NONE of Obama’s other accomplishments are acknowledged or discussed. Again, I’m not extremely happy with his LGBT performance thus far, but I do see some effort on his part, and with continued pressure, do see progress happening for us during our administration. I don’t think he’s a homophobe or a bigot, just a politician…
You’re never going to change this site, or most of it’s posters…if you tire of the fight, move on.
J. Clarence
What a well reasoned piece, Queerty. I’m shocked and surprised, and completely agree with you. It’s hard to reconcile the two extremes of Obama when it comes to gay rights. His rhetoric comes in conflict with his actions it often seems as if there are two people at play.
Nevertheless, the message seems clear, putting on the pressure got the ball rolling far quicker than than repeating “Change we can believe in” or “Yes we can” to ourselves, or at least in addition to.
ducdebrabant
@Robert, NYC: We let him “get away with it” because it’s politically pragmatic, and it is progress. No matter what Obama advocates, they’re not going to have gay marriage in Kansas anytime soon. As long as he does what he’s promised to, I’ll be satisfied for the time being. After all, if DOMA is repealed, Kansans who get married in Iowa will have legal marriages that Kansas HAS to recognize (even if it isn’t issuing licenses to gay Kansans), and presumably the IRS will have to let legally married gay couples file joint federal returns. Is Obama’s position contradictory and ultimately unsatisfactory? Yes. But by the time a position in favor of gay marriage in every state is more than a dim dream, Obama’s position will probably have changed anyway.
TikiHead
@Dennis: Poor, brave, scarred, courageous SM! Put a cool rag to his forehead! Bind his wounds!
(vomiting)
ducdebrabant
For the record, on most issues and in most areas I’m quite well satisfied with Obama. I’m proud as an American of the image he projects abroad. I’m deeply grateful that he’s in favor of economic stimulus during a recession, and not of a federal spending freeze. Every day I thank the Good Lord that John McCain is not President. But where I disagree with him, or am disappointed in him, I’ll say so. I certainly don’t consider it “bashing.” I didn’t support telecom immunity; I want the Bush administration’s illegalities investigated and prosecuted; I am outraged at the prospect that he might seek legal authority for unlimited detention without charge; I worry that he’ll cave on a public option in the health care bill, etc. And I want him to know how I feel.
TikiHead
@ducdebrabant: Thank you for putting that so eloquently — and ditto for me. Cue SM to explain why this is shrill and hateful. Sigh.
Dennis
@TikiHead:
Fuck off, I’m done taking shit from anyone on this site…ever heard of freedom of speech, diversity of opinion, or an alternate viewpoint?
No, because all most posters on this site want to do is bitch, and froth at the mouth…
I support pressure on Obama and the Democrats, but if you can’t see and acknowledge the screeching tone of this site, you’re a deaf, dumb, and blind fuck. Oh, I have sooooo much fun trading insults…maybe I do belong on this site after all.
edgyguy1426
@SM: But it’s the ‘screaming hate filled bitches on this site’ and others like them that made Obama do this in ‘just a week’s time’ – was it not?
TikiHead
@Dennis: We really can’t read your frothing diatribes without all caps. Please rectify.
edgyguy1426
SM- What is your brother’s take on everything going on, I’d be interested to know?
SM
@edgyguy1426:
Lets put a Republican back in office for you babies. The way you all turn on the best President you have had in years after 6 months is PATHTEIC.
Take a stroll around the blog sites…Obama has millions of people wanting his attention but its the LGBT CONSTANTLY BASHING HIM FOR EVERYTHING and SCREWING IT UP FOR THEM!!
TikiHead
Sm’s back! I was so worried.
SM
If you look at the pattern of Obama’s Campaign Promises. He basically works on a promise for each “group” at a time- Women, GLBT, Children, ETC.
He has not given special priority to any “group”. It’s all pretty much equal…except the people with disabilites are not being addressed.
Leave it to Democrats to screw it up for him because we can’t have his back…just wait!
Jim G.
@SM:
I agree there’s some reason for patience AND there’s reason for some advocacy as well. One can be critical without facilitating the return of the GOP alternative. Let’s don’t forget that we got this far without the help of Democrats entirely (sorry for all you who’ve thrown money into Democratic coffers…it wasn’t entirely productive, was it?) and continue to stand up for ourselves.
bluprntguy
Obama deserves to be bashed. He hasn’t done a single thing positive for the LGBT community, and he will throw us under the bus the first chance that he gets. Oh, he ALREADY DID that with the DOMA brief.
Had I been invited to the reception, I would have said “respectfully Mr. President, I’ll shake your hand when you deliver results.” He doesn’t deserve respect until he earns it, and thus far, he has not earned anything. It’s time we stop playing nice, and holding our leaders accountable for their actions, not their words.
Dennis
@TikiHead:
Tiki, I’m actually not on the site to participate in the drama, or get sucked into endless back and forth bitchfights…but again, I’m also DONE (like the caps?) taking shit…
I have a love/hate thing going on with Queerty, and I think that SM has an occasional valid point to look at…and sometimes SM goes overboard and screeches, just like so many other posters on Queerty. SM deserves the right, just as any of the handful of complete wingnuts on the site does.
There is a time for valid complaint, and there is valid pressure for change…and then there is attacking Obama NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES…which I believe this site does. When one bitches and moans ALL the time, and has no ability to play “good cop/bad cop”, or to deal with how D.C. really works (political gamesmanship, not risking your own ass or political capital, you do ‘this’ for me…and I’ll do ‘that’ for you, etc.) we do not serve the cause, or the community…we risk becoming a screeching joke…not saying we’re there yet, but this site does not always help.
TikiHead
@Dennis: Thank you for actually speaking to me like a human being – then you get such speech in return. While SM can be entertaining in his over-the-top abuse, it does get old. Not sure what shit you’ve received from me. Really don’t see it. I see no good points from SM, that are not obscured by his name-calling and all-caps, well, you’ve seen it. That might just be why I , and I’m sure others here, don’t care to see him patted on the head and told he’s fighting the good fight. He is not. He is trolling.
timncguy
@TikiHead: SM is here for one reason and one reason only. To try to stir up trouble. I believe SM does it for pure entertainment. SM has been making the same comments on every thread ad infinitum. SM adds nothing new to any discussion., Just continues to repeat the same tired refrains. If SM is so bothered by the treatment received here, why continue to come here? Just go elsewhere.
TikiHead
@timncguy: Yep. And I have been guilty of that old internet offense: feeding the trolls.
DuttyBarb
Just so im clear..do you really think you will equal rights under law for everything..really??
Dennis
@TikiHead:
Last post and then I’m out, haven’t read all of SM’s posts, but seem to remember them being more “moderate” back when (he/she?) first appeared…more like commenting on the sometimes unfair Obama bashing that happens on Queerty. And I agree, there’s valid criticism of the administration, and then there’s non-stop bashing for any reason (to increase thread post counts)…how is that any better than being a ‘gay version of Rush Limbaugh’, always twisting whatever is going on to fit your agenda?
I do believe this site has a way of ‘hardening’ one’s opinions, maybe SM has turned the corner into full-time screeching, don’t know…or really care all that much. Out, peace.
TikiHead
Don’t let the door hit ya where the Flying Spaghetti Monster split ya.
InExile
Well yesterday was more of the same Bla, Bla, Bla, no surprise there! VERY DISAPPOINTING to say the least but definitely keeping with the statue quo. I wish I could believe he was sincere about keeping his promises but his actions do not back up the retoric.
Stumbled on an article about OBAMA’S (reportedly) NEW CHURCH & MINISTER, check it out:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/6/29/142514/200
No one can be all things to all people and still stand for anything. If the choice is the LGBT community or the religious right, my bet is he will choose the religious right. I hope I am wrong!
Markie-Mark
I’m reminded of Dennis Kucinich’s response during the LOGO debates when asked about the country not being ready for same-sex marriage. He replied: That’s why we need a leader, not a follower.
I agree that we must keep the heat going and the money cut off until there are results from Obama. In my opinion it is the only thing has worked so far.
I’m very happy to see this discussion and to be able to participate in it. Everyone, please don’t let trolls like SM derail the discussion and take it off the subject.
Markie-Mark
@InExile: you said: If the choice is the LGBT community or the religious right, my bet is he will choose the religious right.
I think you are correct, InExile. The Democratic Party would love to get the votes of the religious right. That would explain the connection with Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren and the promise to elevate the Faith Based Initiative to a cabinet level position. And Obama is going to visit the Pope next week. He certainly has spent more time courting this group then he has on LGBT rights. For that matter, he’s spent more time picking out his dog.
InExile
@Markie-Mark: I loved Dennis Kucinich as a Presidential candidate. Dennis was the only one I was sure would do good for the common man and LGBT rights. My second choice was Hillary but we all know how that turned out, so here we are at the 40th anniversary of Stonewall being stonewalled.
I agree the money thing (cutting it off) seems to work, guess that is all they care about.
Ignore SM, he is a brainwashed Obot martyr and is only able to see things through his O colored glasses.
InExile
@Markie-Mark: I don’t know if you checked the link in my comment above but it was quite alarming. The article was reporting on Obama’s new church and minister, the site has been scrubbed I guess. The article said he was attending the Chappel at Camp David and the minister was quoted as saying some pretty scary stuff in regard to evangelizing the military, the world and the country. Very alarming but not surprising. Guess we will see if it is true or not. i picked up the link to the story on buzzflash.com.
InExile
@InExile: Just checked the link. it is working again.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/6/29/142514/200
Cam
@slider:
You said………””No. 11 Cam
You said: “Marriage is for a breeding pair. A man and woman. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “I don’t know a lot of gay men who want to be’ the wife’ “.”
You better let an awful lot of str8 people know who are married that unless they are going to have children, then they must dissolve their marriages..You sound exactly like the moron John Kerry did when he uttered the same words in stating marriage is for procreation..I don’t see he and Teresa making any babbies.
Your comment is beyond the beyond…so that means str8s and Gays who have no children or choose not to have children or choose not to adopt are not permitted to marry?
Your reasoning lacks reason and logic and thought.”
________________________________________________________________
I never said ANY of that, I was responding to M_Shane, THEY said that. I merely posted it so I could respond to it. And I agree with you…it is a stupid comment, the only problem with your post is that “No. 10 · M Shane” made that comment, not me.
imagineace
I think Obama is doing the right thing. Clinton tried to repeal DADT at the beginning of his first term and it was not the politically viable thing to do at the time. What happened — he lost his political capital, lost control of congress during the midterm elections, and couldn’t enact any meaningful legislation for the remainder of his presidency, from DADT to health care reform. Given what Obama is trying to accomplish outside the gay agenda, he has an enormous amount to do with the political capital he has. Considering the right is still trying to block every bit of legislation he puts forth, now would be the worst time to try to push through with repealing DADT and the DOMA. What would work better is to use it as an attachment to a larger bill (perhaps healthcare?) in order to swing some votes his way, much in the way that the guns in national parks addition was used to pass the credit card reform act.
If you try to rush this through and it fails again, do you want to wait until another Dem president has enough capital to try again? I didn’t think so…Obama knows how politics work and he has a plan. Don’t force him to make the same mistake Clinton made.
SM
http://img171.imageshack.us/i/2832750064a1dd298f37.jpg/
edgyguy1426
Most of the Joint Chiefs if Staff were opposed to gays in the military and Clinton’s non-service history. Here we are 17 years later and not only the century has changed. Many former opponents have endorsed repeal like Colin Powell and the public is behind it with not a small majority. Yes, lessons can be learned from the Clinton bungling but these are different times, and Obama a very different man than Clinton. Obama doesn’t seem to be as obsessed with poll numbers or public opinion (I may be wrong) but I think Obama has tons more integrity and political capital than Clinton (remember Clinton didn’t even receive 50% of the popular vote.)
ducdebrabant
@SM: “If you look at the pattern of Obama’s Campaign Promises. He basically works on a promise for each “group” at a time- Women, GLBT, Children, ETC.
He has not given special priority to any “group”. It’s all pretty much equal…except the people with disabilites are not being addressed.”
“Not giving priority to any group” basically means that heterosexuals get the top priority ALL the time.
InExile
@SM: Cute! So let me ask you…Why did Obama expand the “Faith Base Initiatives” which everyone knows is just a government way to funnel tax dollars to the religious right which in turn uses the money to DESTROY LGBT citizens? And why has he continued to allow the military to EVANGELIZE our troops, many times against their will? Oh, and why do we keep hearing the same campaign rhetoric with no actions to back it up?
I am not comfortable hearing the same old speech with no action to back it up, makes me wonder if the promises are on the up and up.
I was especially concerned to see this website discussing his (reported NEW CHURCH). Do you know anything about this?
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/6/29/142514/200
rick
just shut the hell up already. it has been only five months and things have to be done properly so that the right doesn’t get any more ammunition than they already claim.
InExile
@rick: Oh, are you referring to the DADT brief or the DOMA brief?
SM
Al Franken can finally be seated as a US Senator.
You all should be thrilled.
Robert, NYC
@Cam:
Just because you are one among a few “gay” people who want the right to marry, that’s fine, but when you speak like that you’re giving the religious right more ammunition to make sure we don’t ever get that right. Nobody is forcing anyone to marry as far as we’re concerned, least of all YOU.
“Marriage is for a breeding pair”? You’ve bought into that right wing religious wacko crap. If that’s your belief, fine, but then that would open up a can of worms that could lead to the dissolution of straight married childless couples and any future couples from marrying who “choose” not to breed or can’t for whatever reason. Your argument is illogical and flawed if that’s your premise for not supporting our right to marry if we so “choose”. The one man one woman procreation mantra is all religious based. Religious marriage is vastly different to civil marriage. A marriage license is not continent on procreation either, it gives two people who “love” each other primarily access to 1324 rights, federal and state rights that one can only get through marriage. Even if Obama’s plan to adopt civil unions at the federal level comes to fruition, they would not necessarily comprise all of those rights either.
Mark
Empty platitudes from President Obama are hurting his credibility now and will cause more damage in the future. Mr. Obama is on the wrong side of history on marriage equality and what it means to be treated EQUALLY by our Government. The fact that so many are willing to not hold him accountable but stand in line for some crumbs is the symptom of this celebrity obsessed culture. Sad.
Sam
And the proof begins:
DOJ Will Not Appeal Veteran’s Victory In Transgender Discrimination Case
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/40092prs20090701.html
Robert, NYC
@Mark:
Obama’s problem is like that of many in the GOP, they allow their personal religious beliefs to enter politics and they’ve not learned how to separate personal from public. Religion is a choice, learned behavior, people are taught to hate, nobody comes into this world that way. Religion should be treated as any other lifestyle choice, even a hobby perhaps and as such, these things are and should be confined to one’s home, where they rightly belong. Personally, there are many things I find extremely offensive coming from so called “religious” people, but I don’t call for banning their rights just because I’m an atheist. Maybe if we did to set an example, they’d get a dose of their own hate medicine. The democrats need the religious wackos as much as the GOP, after all, every vote counts even if it means throwing us under the bus, repeatedly. We’re the last targeted group to hate, the scapegoats for all that is wrong with society. They exploit that and manipulate us with empty campaign speeches, republicans and democrats alike. The day we stop supporting any of them by withholding donations and our votes as a voting bloc will be the day they take us seriously. I believe in the old addage, action speaks louder than words. I’ve not seen any.
Robert, NYC
@Robert, NYC:
A typo in my post to CAM. I meant to have said a marriage license is not contingent on procreation…, my apologies.
edgyguy1426
@Robert, NYC: Robert, you better have a look at post No. 10 before your brain lets your hands misfire. Cam was responding to M. Shane above. I think you owe CAM an apology. maybe you should read the whole thread and THEN post. Also read post No. 56 for further clarification.
Robert, NYC
@Robert, NYC:
Cam…my apologies, my comments were directed at M. Shane, an oversight on my part.
Robert, NYC
@edgyguy1426:
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I’ve posted an apology to CAM.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
Hmmm
Re: Obama, DOMA, DADT, “war” funding, national health, bail-outs for Wall St looters, Israel-Palestine, etc.
What would Malcolm X, MLK, and Reverend Wright say?
Change? Small change….
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connnecticut