Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
Diplomatic Community

SURPRISE: Hillary Clinton Is Giving Gay Diplomats Their Rights. Why Now?


In what can only be described as a stunning development inside an administration that’s shown almost no concern for the well-being of gay Americans, the State Department will begin offering gay diplomats the same benefits as their straight counterparts. This is important not just because it’s a step toward equality, but because it contradicts the very rationale that President Obama has been using to perpetuate discrimination.

An announcement is expected from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will say discriminating against same-sex loving officials is “unfair and must end,” not just because it’s morally wrong, but that “providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad.”

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: Offering equality to American officials actually makes the whole department stronger, more effective, and safer! Also, GET THIS: It will help recruit talent!

Included in Clinton’s expected remarks in a memo sent to the organization Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies: “It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do.”

Why such a big deal?

Because Clinton’s remarks will be an official Obama administration statement on why it’s important to treat gays equality. You remember equality, don’t you? It’s that thing gays in the military aren’t being given, because military officials keep insisting granting gay servicemen the right to serve openly would make the armed forces less safe, less effective, and would hurt retention and recruitment. Certainly, the military and diplomatic outposts abroad are not apples to apples, and neither should all their policies; but Clinton’s remarks are the most striking and definitive so far that ending discrimination is, very simply, the right thing to do both ethically and logistically.

So what will our diplomats be receiving? They will be able to have “diplomatic passports, government-paid travel for their partners and families to and from foreign posts, and the use of U.S. medical facilities abroad. In addition, gay diplomats’ families will now be eligible for U.S. government emergency evacuations and training courses at the Foreign Service Institute.” (That gay partners have so far not been eligible for emergency evacuations — say, in the case of an attack on an embassy — is stunning.)

It’s unclear why Clinton is making this call now rather than, say, in tandem with other government offices. But her openness toward the State Department’s gays is well-publicized; they even drafted up a definitive list of what their new boss could do for them. (From the looks of things, Clinton agreed to the major pillars. Previously, she said: “And even though, as you pointed out, all of our personnel share the same service requirements, the partners in same-sex relationships are not offered the same training, the same benefits, and the same protections that other family members receive when you serve abroad. So I view this as an issue of workplace fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide. So I have asked for a staff review of current policies, especially those that are set forth in State Department regulations, and recommendations and a strategy for making effective changes.”)

The new policy almost certainly went through President Obama, who likely gave a tacit approval, if only because of the changes’ sensitive political nature. But the policy will bring gay American diplomats up to speed with their foreign counterparts, many of whom already receive these benefits from their nations. And that’s pretty remarkable, especially given the inherent admission: The United States has been doing something wrong to gay people.

And also: The entire thing violates a smug little policy known as the Defense of Marriage Act. Funny how top officials don’t need an act of Congress to end discrimination.

On:           May 25, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,
    • The Gay Numbers

      Clinton is the Sec of State under Obama right? So, it is a odd to claim one is unconnected to the ther.

      May 25, 2009 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Puck

      Correction: Second Paragrapg Line 1-2. Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State not defense secretary. Smack your proofreader

      May 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wowjustwow

      Yep, we can all count on Queerty to use this positive development as on opportunity to make a cheap dig.

      May 25, 2009 at 2:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • zack

      Yes, please fix her title. Secretary of State! Geez.

      Also, is this story fake? There are a bunch of mistakes, it is written poorly, and does Clinton even have the power to make such a decision? I am not sure one part of the federal government could give out such rights without others parts also giving such rights. Also why would we have her “expected remarks” already and why would they be in quotes. Something seems fishy here.

      May 25, 2009 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alejandro

      as soon as i saw a pic of hilary i knew this would be an obama hating fest. gave up reading it after the first few paragraphs. god this shit sucks.

      May 25, 2009 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Hauslaib · Queerty Editor

      @zack: The statement has not been officially released. It was sent last week to gay and lesbian FSOs, but was not made public; that’s expected at some point this week. The quotes are from the prepared statement.

      May 25, 2009 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey

      Re: Puck- Proofreader? for Queerty? LOL

      Re: Zach- you must limit yourself to reading Queerty. This story has been making the rounds of other blogs (2 two days already).

      May 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      Here’s the Washington Post story.

      It’s based on a draught memo, and they say The Advocate broke the story.

      Those hacks at the Post got it all wrong though, they left out all the important stuff I wanted to know about how Obama is to blame for this and how he is fucking everything else up.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve

      @zack: Do you want your news fast, right, or cheap? Pick any two, you can’t have all three. Except cheap isn’t really optional on add-supported sites without subscription fees, so you have to pick between fast and right. If you want it fast, there will be mistakes. If you want it right, publishers have do fact-checking and proof-reading, and that takes time.

      The mainstream media will get the facts right, sometime in the next few days. For now, online outlets just want the sizzle.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee

      The sentence “The new policy almost certainly went through President Obama” makes it clear Queerty believes there is a connection.

      And some people either don’t understand or are to lazy to click on the built-in link in “is expected” in “An announcement is expected from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”

      If you had you would discover a link to an Associated Press story [covered on ABC evening news last night] that some gays working at the State Department leaked the news. Here, let me make it simpler for you:


      They could be wrong, of course. This is not a “cheap shot” by Queerty but a bullseye after months of antigay [yes, there is no better word] actions and inactions from the administration [such as vowing to DEFEND DADT in court]. Cynic that I am, I think there’s a 50-50 chance she did not get his blessing. And, yes, children, the Secretary has such power.

      On the other hand, one could be wildly optimistic and suggest that Clinton and Obama conspired together on this as a trial balloon with the intent of his doing something broader and bolder if this meets with little resistance. One can dream….

      In any case, this is a MAJOR advance both symbolic and substantive. The partner of Michael Guest when Guest was ambassador to Romania had none of the protections the partner of a straight ambassador would have had in a rabidly homophobic country. 68% of Romanians think being gay is wrong, and last week was the fourth homohating demonstration in as many years. Though….wait for it….EVEN THEY allow gays in their military!


      May 25, 2009 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee


      Correction: as soon as i saw a pic of hilary and because i have my head up Obama’s ass i gave up reading it after the first few paragraphs because hating her and idolizing him are far more important than LGBT rights.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dabq

      @wowjustwow: Now come on, would you really expect anything other than Obama bashing by this site? Its the bread and butter of it! Too bad the site and its readers need Obama to validate them and their lives and take them out of this mental bondage they are in by being gay, but, hey to each his own.

      And, its a shame that good news, which is actually old news, has to be bought in with the same old lame, bitter sour grapes, but, they still have 2012 to get Palin in to help them.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dabq

      @Lee: Sorry, HRC certainly does not need you to defend her and would be galled that your type is attempting to do so, she is a capable, smart woman, who in case you haven’t heard told Congress get over it Obama is President!

      May 25, 2009 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee


      Several BaCrack addicts are still on the loose. Identifiable by naked dishonesty and babbling hallucinations about some “Messiah.” Approach with caution. They are armed with desperate distortions and denials of fact and will immediately try to knock you down with ad hominems. Rehab Prognosis: Poor. May be trying to get to BaCrack Davidian compound or Guyana.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GBM

      The bottom line is this. YES she released this statement. However it has to go through another agency before any approval.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianZ

      Clinton promised to act on this issue when she met with her staff after assuming the role of Secretary of State. She did caveat that promise that she may be limited in action by DOMA. She followed through, if these articles are to believed. I for one think it’s awesome news, and a positive for Clinton and the Obama administration in general. It would also be nice to hear something directly from our president. I believe that single issue, the silence, is what bothers many in the LGBT community the most.

      Old articles discussing this from Jan/Feb:
      You can do the search yourself if you’d like more.

      Color me amused that those who always rant about the negative Obama commentary never have anything positive to say themselves, even in the light of great news. Pity.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      I guess Obama could not stop Hillary from extending equality within her department! He probably just thought it would be easier to just let her make these policy changes, not too many people are strong enough to stand up to Hillary!

      Thank you Hillary for standing up for us and for standing up for what you believe is right regardless of what others say. Hillary once again is defining the word character! If only our other politicians in Washington had Hillary’s courage, strength, and unwavering tenacity to do the right thing.

      May 25, 2009 at 3:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock


      “Color me amused that those who always rant about the negative Obama commentary never have anything positive to say themselves, even in the light of great news. Pity.”

      You might want to check past articles before making that generalization. And before deflecting the blame on those who are actually taking issue with a negative editorial slant, read that lede again.

      Could you think of way to put a more negative spin on this “good news” story?

      May 25, 2009 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dgz

      trying really hard to not say “i told you so…”


      May 25, 2009 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)

      sound cool

      May 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dabq

      @strumpetwindsock: Thank you, its not as if any positive Obama post or the fact that so far he has put 30 members of the glbt community into positions in his administration, is going to change the minds of those here, who he can, will, not and won’t ever do anything that they deem a good thing even if he were what they want 24/7, and, nothing else matters to any of them. The hate they have for him is worse than the right wing plank of the GOP, so, why bother. Its best to call them out on their hypocrisy, and, that they have bundles of that an no clue about the real world.

      This site really is the same as the gay patriot lite, all these gay conservatives who usually want less government, now screeching that they want more, who would have thought that?

      May 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JohnVisser

      “The entire thing violates a smug little policy known as the Defense of Marriage Act.”

      WRONG – The Defense of Marriage Act says nothing about granting benefits/rights to partners of LGBT people, nor, does it address in any way domestic partnerships or civil unions. The federal government is free (as far as DOMA is concerned) to grant whatever benefits/rights it deems appropriate to its employees’ partners. DOMA addresses only marriage and the word “spouse”. The State Dept can amend its benefits policy to include spouses and partners without violating DOMA.

      May 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake


      Come on. Of course Obama had to approve of this policy change.
      Clinton works for Obama. Any policy that is put in place in the State Department is Obama’s policy.

      The way Queerty worded this article tries to make Clinton into the great white hope for gays vs. evil Obama. A review of both of their statements during the campaign, shows that both shared the same views on gay rights. Clinton was against gay marriage and for Civil Unions, etc.

      People can fantasize all they want that Clinton would have bent over backwards for gays had she been elected president are kidding themselves. Look at how Clinton used anti-black racism to try to win votes. She’s just as cynical as any other politician.

      May 25, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake


      Hillary works for Obama. These weren’t “her” changes, these changes reflect Obama’s policies. Why do you ignore the numerous appointments of gays and lesbians that Obama has made?

      You seriously don’t understand that Obama has more power and credibility than Clinton. Obama didn’t have to hire to work for him. Clinton was a junior senator from New York. She angered and alienated many people with her campaign that would have affected her ability to get re-elected.

      May 25, 2009 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianZ

      @strumpetwindsock: Oh I think as far as generalizations go, it was about as appropriate as generalizations get. Obviously, or I wouldn’t have written it.

      If one doesn’t care for the slant of the editorial staff, he/she should stop visiting and commenting to Queerty and go visit a site that is more tolerable. At a certain point it does present the appearance that defending a politician trumps ‘the cause’.

      Not that there aren’t examples of the people at the other end of the spectrum, those for whom Obama will never be praise-worthy, because there are. I find neither tolerable or rational. Although I find one of those groups useful, and the other a hinderance.

      This is your idea of negative? Oh because it stated that this administration has “shown almost no concern for the well-being of gay Americans”? It might sting one’s sense of attachment to a man they’ve never met, but I find it hard to take issue with the sentiment. Oh well.

      May 25, 2009 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake


      I always appreciate your nuanced perspective. You’re one of my favorite commenters.

      May 25, 2009 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft

      @InExile: Yes, thank goddess for our Secretary of State!

      @The Gay Numbers: Yes, I also don’t think this could have happened without President Obama’s help. Still, I’m hoping he does more on the equality front (like ending DADT & DOMA) soon!

      May 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft

      @blake: And why do you have to resort to trashing Hillary Clinton? My gawd, that was so early last year! The primary’s over, so why must we continue to hear this “Hillary’s a racist bitch who hates men so much she eats them for lunch!” BS?

      May 25, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @blake: Why do you insist on minimizing when Hillary takes a stand on an issue on our behalf, sounds sexists. The truth is Obama would not have a plan for gays if he did not copy Hillary’s plan. Until the primary was over mainly due to Pelosi and Brazil changing rules midway to award Obama delegates he did not earn as well as stopping a true convention floor vote, Obama did not care much about LGBT issues. In the end he included LGBT citizens in his plans and we supported him and send him money and voted for him and then………………silence!

      May 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec

      @InExile: The truth is Obama would not have a plan for gays if he did not copy Hillary’s plan.

      Incorrect. There were differences in their proposals. Then Senator Clinton had more spending on HIV programs for example, while Senator Obama called for full repeal of DOMA, including the section that stated states could refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states (Senator Clinton did not favor repeal of that provision).

      Overall, however, they had roughly the same policy. And you’re dreaming if you think he “copied” her, unless you believe Senator Kerry also copied her. Give me a break.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @Alec: He had ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN, until he was the nominee, that is a fact! He even refused to be interviewed by the Philadelphia gay News! Get real!

      May 25, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @Alec: And where is the repeal of DOMA now?……………………………….SILENCE???????????

      Oh, that’s right, we should just have faith. The proof is in the pudding. Where is it???

      May 25, 2009 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anal Warts for Obama keep coming back

      “slanted”??? Queerty = gay Republicans???

      How ironic, in a stomach-turning way, that the empty defenders of Obama emulate Pentagon homohaters who don’t like hearing that gay soldiers are good.

      The Obamoonies only defense against the crystal clear message that Obama has so far turned out to be a phony on gay rights is to shoot at the messenger.

      Ya better save some bullets for PamsHouseBlend, JoeMyGod, Towleroad, the Advocate, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WAPO, ad infinitum.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @atdleft: I agree regarding pressure on him. I am just calling bullshit to the frame this Clinton versus Obama when in fact its both. There is no way this policy went through without the approval of the president since he is the final say.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jjm16

      sounds generally insignificant. and WTF does this have to do with DOMA?

      May 25, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @Alec: @Alec: @Alec: We are back on the same page. The level of delusion in which people place too much emphasis on one politician being better than another when in fact they are almost the same is delusional. I know CLinton was better in some ways, and Obama was better in others in ther campaign promises, but let’s not fool ourselves into believing she would have followed through. She’s a poltician. You have to put pressure on them. I also like how they think heer actions at the state department are complete her on without any input from the guy who is her boss.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      I’m not an American, so my concern about Obama is limited to the fact he hasn’t destroyed the world yet.

      My disagreement is with bad reporting, and this site has a couple of slants that are bad to the point of being ridiculous. The lede on this story? I am surprised they left out the bit about Obama not commenting because he was too busy kicking his dog.

      If this were a truly good news story why put in any mention of Obama at all? Did the writer not think the peanut gallery would be quick enough with the criticism?

      And if I don’t like it go somewhere else? Don’t you guys live in the land of the free? I’ve heard that line a few times, and it’s not getting any fresher, nor is it any more effective.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @InExile: Are you retarded? The point is not whether obama is going to repeal DOMA. The point is whether we can treat either Clinton or Obama any differently as poliiticans or are you people deluding yourselves to believe either one is to be trusted. You will notice I am not saying to trust Obama. I am saying don’t be so fucking stupid as to think it would have mattered whether it was Clinton or Obama. You would have to fight every inch of the way.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      why thank you


      May 25, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex

      Wow, I thought this Hilary/Obama shit went away when the primaries ended. Yuck.

      Did it occur to anyone that maybe the administration is dipping their feet in the LGBT equality water to bring out the hater goons so they don’t get ambushed like Clinton did on DADT. And maybe Hilary–who, (along with Bill) probably really cares about our rights, but after decades up to her eyeballs in the muck of politics has become something of a realist rather than an idealist–offered Foggy bottom, a bastion of genteel liberalism, as the proving ground. That maybe they both care about our country, and are doing what they can given the massive and at times violent opposition from the vast, right wing conspiracy, and not constantly sniping at each other like some of their supporters.

      Also, on the topic of emergency evacuations, one observes that in most emergencies, ranging from wars to cyclones, all Americans in the area, and especially in proximity to the embassy, are evacuated.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      Following on my “why mention Obama” comment – the Washington Post story does not mention Obama directly at all. It states only that one of the diplomats in the story worked on his transition team.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane

      The bottom line is most certainly that the Clinton would not have made this kind of determination except with Obamas go ahead . She doesn’t run her own presidency as miuch as some towheads might think
      Queerty is misrepresenting the situation in comnntext despite one line to the contrary. Let’s be smart; at least try.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @Alex: The Hillary/Obama stuff did go away after the primary but she is pulling through and he is not so…….what’s your point?

      Sure he had to approve of the policy change but with the LGBT community not very happy these days, he had to approve something. And the story is about her not him which keeps him safe from being a LGBT supporter! I hope he is just operating under the radar on our behalf. We may know for sure one way or the other after tomorrow (Prop 8). I must say his choice of being at the Beverly Hilton Wednesday is very curious timing???

      May 25, 2009 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake


      Get real. I never said anything about Hillary being a “racist bitch” who “eats men.” Those are your words. I think you are missing the point, Hillary did use racism to win votes. Because she used racism to win does not mean that she’s racist, it just reflects her thinking. Moreover, her use of racism did not take place “early in the year” it extended until early summer.

      Your willingness to excuse Hillary’s use of racism is hypocritical. Whereas you accuse and others point to Obama’s lack of action as being anti-gay, you are willing to excuse Clinton’s blantant racist acts.

      Just as many gays are disappointed with Obama’s lack of action, many other people were and still are disgusted with Hillary Clinton’s use racism to win elections. You are being condescending and dismissive to legitimate concerns that arose from Clinton’s actions.

      Why should Clinton get a pass for her actions if she never bothered to apologize or make amends?

      May 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianZ

      @strumpetwindsock: I’ve already expressed my sentiments on your definition of rediculous/negative. I don’t see why you would have a bit of trouble with some exageration given ” I am surprised they left out the bit about Obama not commenting because he was too busy kicking his dog.” Rediculous indeed.

      I don’t write for this site, I simply read and occasionally post. I do so because I generally enjoy it. What you do with your time, how you choose to amuse yourself, is up to you.

      Yes, people here, and apparently in many countries, are free to be as miserable or happy as they choose to be.

      May 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D.C


      This is the standout comment of this forum section.

      May 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @blake: I think it was Obama that brought race into the primary contest! The Clinton’s have a very clear record that shows they are not racists. Why would Bill Clinton have his office in Harlem improving the neighborhood and creating jobs if he was a racists? Obama played the race card to gain advantage as part of the political game. Politicians use all they can to win, so don’t try to make the Clintons out to be racists because they are not!

      May 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @blake: Maybe you were thinking of sexism which was running rampant in the primary???

      May 25, 2009 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake


      For goodness’ sake, Hillary Clinton works for Obama. Any plan that she puts in place IS Obama’s policy. I’m not foolish enough to fall for Queerty’s attempt to play Clinton off as some heroine against supposedly villainous Obama. That’s ridiculous.

      Obama had gay advisors from the start of his campaign, including former friends and allies of Clintons.

      Do I wish Obama moved faster on gay rights? Yes. I also know that things are frakked up in this country and he’s probably scared of falling into the same trap that Bill Clinton found himself in when he tried to end discrimination in the military. Obama may believe wrongly or rightly that the Right would use gay rights to prevent him from working on other parts of his agenda that also benefit gays (like getting a liberal justice appointed to the court, health care reform, etc.).

      Politicians need to be pushed, prodded and pulled to make hard choices. I’m all for criticizing and pushing Obama to work for the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

      However, I just don’t see any reason why I should let Queerty manipulate me into thinking fondly of Hillary Clinton. I’ve been a long time reader of Queerty and know the editorial bias that exists here. This article was headlined and then written to play Clinton against Obama.

      Finally, Hillary Clinton ran one of the most racist campaigns in modern American history. While she may not be a racist, whe was well aware of how to use race to divide the electorate. It was cynical and destructive. I have no doubt that if her opponent had been a gay man or a lesbian Hillary Clinton would have used similarly homophobic tactics that person.

      May 25, 2009 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @blake: Say what you want to demonize Hillary, she is a champion for “our” rights and there are very few of those out there so try a little praise and thanks for her doing the right thing since we are still waiting for Obama to do the right thing! HILLARY CAN DO NO WRONG!!!

      May 25, 2009 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wowjustwow

      @InExile: HILLARY CAN DO NO WRONG!!!

      Is this a joke?

      May 25, 2009 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • flightoftheseabird

      Some of us knew this was in the works already and has been since Clinton was appointed. These have full support by Obama. It was being pushed from inside the State Dept but also with a lot of work from HRC. (Human Rights Campaign as well as Hillary).

      May 25, 2009 at 6:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hal

      It’s the Hillary gays versus the Obama gays. Let the hair-pulling and eye-gouging begin!

      May 25, 2009 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry

      All you Obama haters sound so self-righteous and just borderline retarded. Oh, that’s right, I don’t need to qualify that. RETARDED, apologies to all. He’s been president all of almost five months, and politics is slow. If after four or eight years, then he hasn’t done anything significant for LGBT americans, then you will be justified. If however, by the end of his time in office he does do something significant, I hope you at least feel silly. Please, no more hateration in this dancerie.

      May 25, 2009 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @InExile: You are nutjob. Who is demonizing Clinton?

      May 25, 2009 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @Henry: Both sides sound retarded. Neither Clinton or Obama will do anything without being pushed. The rest of this is dear leaderism.

      May 25, 2009 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sceth

      @The Gay Numbers:
      Well said. They’re not evil, just lazy and poorly motivated.

      May 25, 2009 at 7:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      @blake: Hillary has a hundred times more credibility than Barack.

      The only reason people hated Hillary is because she was the one who was qualified but they wanted Barack. Everyone knows this.

      There is no comparison between these two people. Never will be. Just because he’s a slick male who represents every slick male that always gets the job does not make him credible.

      Hillary Clinton has a long history of being kind to LGBTQ … Barack has a history of dirty Chicago politics and anti-gay bigotry … “God in is the Mix” …

      May 25, 2009 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      I think several of these posters are sock puppets put up by the site to draw traffic. No one is this biased in their stupidity.

      May 25, 2009 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev

      Just, wow! at these comments.

      May 25, 2009 at 8:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      Barack – H is for Hypocrite – Obama always looks awkward in his position as President of the United States. He looks uncomfortable, even as he he looks down his nose all the time at everybody, he still looks like an awkward slickter. Nothing new here in America.

      People are so dumb they believe in things like logos.

      These dum-dums also actually still trust in politicians.

      I mean that is some funny stuff right there.

      Are all the queers getting their signs ready for tomorrow? Give all the straight people a good laugh. Make them funny, witty, and colorful OK? We know gays can make some signs boy! In between yawning they Barack might get word somehow some way that a fe hundred queers were upset about something or other … like their civil rights being stripped from them.

      May 25, 2009 at 8:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      What’s this?



      That’s the sound of an Obot everytime anyone says anything true about Barack.

      May 25, 2009 at 8:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blake


      I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Interested in buying it? I also have securitized mortgage of Nevada property that might interest you, also.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blake

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Nothing would surprise me about the ignorance or stupidity of people.

      Neither Obama nor Clinton are saints. They’re both politicians. Their platforms on gay rights were identical. For anyone to assume that Hillary Clinton had the power to force policy changes on how the State Department operates down Obama’s throat does not understand how basic employer and employee relationships work much less how White House politics operate.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blake

      @Chitown Kev:

      Why be surprised? As soon as you saw the headline, you knew that that a festive celebration of ignorance and cynicism must would be encountered. This is Queerty after all, the uncle you love and hate all in one.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock


      It would be unlikely that it was done without Obama’s say-so especially since it is a budget issue.

      It is interesting that this concerns civil servants who work outside the U.S. as liaisons with other governments. It is good, but I presume it is being launched on this front as a matter of public image and influencing other governments (and safely outside the country).

      There are other more inflammatory areas where they could have introduced this policy.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tofer david

      @blake: obama’s cred is gonna crumble if he cant come out one way or the other on anyting…

      look at his two non descript speeches last week.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev


      I mean, don’t these Queerty people work and have bosses? Or, better yet, have a boss AND employees that report to them? What incredible ignorance.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      I maintain that several of these posters are sock puppets. They come out the blue saying random shit.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • douglasgibsonjr

      If I am not mistaken, I believe that the actual benefits will come through the embassies and the embassies are not affected by DOMA.

      May 25, 2009 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:
      @Chitown Kev:
      Well they were doing a bit more than that a couple of nights ago, remember?

      May 25, 2009 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev


      yeah, they were. And in my name!

      May 25, 2009 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft

      @blake: Because she never “used racism”! I’m so sick of this garbage left over from the primary season!

      @flightoftheseabird: Finally, a sane voice.

      @The Gay Numbers: You may be right. This feels like a MyDD thread from April 2008.

      May 25, 2009 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      Peo are emotionally invested in these politicians in ways that I am not. That’s why I say trust none of them. Besides, it’s not our job to trust them. Our job is to get our rights so that we can live our lives.

      May 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev

      @The Gay Numbers:


      Especially the emotional investment in politicians, I can take my gay hat off and put my cynical political hat on in a minute. Neither Obama nor Clinton are God or Satan, they are politicians.

      That doesn’t mean that I want them to act against my best interest.

      May 25, 2009 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @Chitown Kev: It simply means you see them as a potential tool for your interests rather than as someone whom you must support at all cost. The sad part is where you see people get so caught up that they reverse what the relationship between voters and polticians should be. We become the servants, and they are the employers, rather than the reverse- we are the employers in control of them as public servants. I am of the “make them do it” school because that’s what you do with employees. You may or may not trust your employee, but you still need the work done.

      May 25, 2009 at 11:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:
      @Chitown Kev:

      There is also the illusion of focusing on one person when in fact s/he at the head of a massive system comprised of thousands of people and hundreds of issues.

      And being at the head is not the same as being in the driver’s seat. Congress’s rebuke of the guantanamo plan is just one example.

      May 25, 2009 at 11:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @strumpetwindsock: gitmo is a bad example. Obama is preceeding with his plan despite congress. as peo have said he should do with dadt.

      May 25, 2009 at 11:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:
      Yeah, I know he said the rejection was the right thing to do, and he’ll bring it back when he has cooked it right.

      What I meant was that he’s not the entire government and all it’s decision-making power wrapped up in one body.

      May 25, 2009 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      @Blake: Dear Obot. I just sewed a Obama’s face on the back of a sweater, it’s going for 3 fitty. Interested? I took the Pepsi logo and slapped Madonna Obama’s face in the middle. The Madonna Obama sweaters are flying off the rack!

      May 25, 2009 at 11:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      @The Gay Numbers:

      His plan? Thought it was bush’s plan…well, it is. The bush plan for gitmo…only now, he’s putting his name to it.

      May 25, 2009 at 11:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      Lord knows whatever Jessica Alba and Tirese say is something I’m going to listen to. They are coming from political sophistication and intelligence.
      Errrrybody chant!

      May 25, 2009 at 11:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      Dum-dums can’t follow facts.

      They want to hear emooootions. Emoootional talk about how hard it is for Daddybama. He’s got it so rough.

      In 1775 5% won the revolutionary war, about 1% started it. Over and over again throughout history it is a minority who is ahead of the sleepingwalking sheep. It was less that 1% who were against slavery in 1800 the abolitionist. by 1868, the sheep catch up. Sheep sleep, while the rest work toward real change by speaking dissent to corrupt leaders. Barack is as corrupt as any.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      I love how the Obots were all talking about how “intelligent” Matt Damon is.


      This kid looks like he’s about to go on the toilet and shit himself into a stroke. Thank God for Matt he got his Barack. I was really scared for these celebutards. They would have all had to up their doses of Zoloft and drink even MORE than they already do. When would they have time to smoke pot?

      May 26, 2009 at 12:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitc

      May 26, 2009 at 12:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @TANK: Some confusion – I meant the closing. What are you referencing? Obama has the Clintonian need to say opposing things at once- so maybe you know some information that I do not know since this is not my issue.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @strumpetwindsock: For the purpose of how our system is structured- his voice is the most important as the commander and chief on DADT, especially given the weight given in recent years to the executive.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      @The Gay Numbers:

      I’m referring to his handling of afghanistan, iraq–america’s main foreign policy investments, for the most part in dealing with the “terror” problem. His policy toward gitmo has been in line with the matured bush admin. position. concerning his domestic economic plan, he is also following the bush plan. He hasn’t really deviated in any significant way from the bush administration except for a few cosmetic stances and reversals (abortion funding and stem cell research).

      May 26, 2009 at 12:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      And in many respect, he is very much like bush even comsetically with his pro abstinence only education initiatives.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      and faith based initiatives, rather. That was error as he’s gutted much of the abstinence only education…but some of it is still funded.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:
      Absolutely, I agree.

      As a matter of fact the right kind of leader can play an important inspirational role without doing too much at all.

      I was simply saying that even the most authoritarian leader has some limits, and cannot simply decide something and have it done.

      But I don’t want to get off on a tangent; essentially I was agreeing with and adding to your comment #74.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @TANK: I once heard a great quote on the radio: “Why exaggerate or distort the facts when the truth paints strong picture about what needs to be done.” Reading your posts that’s what often comes to mind. Some parts I agree with in your posts, and other parts not so much. I am not going to go back and forth because the exaggerations makes the rest futile.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Well, I never figured you for someone with much to say… But at least a few facts to back up your empty assertions would be sufficient. I didn’t think you were an obot…huh, go figure.

      Faith based initiatives remain funded under obama. Afghanistan and Iraq are an extension of bush policy, and gitmo and the latest developments there (more obama backtracking) is more bushco. The only thing I retract is the abstinence only education…which is simply cosmetic, as with stem cell research and foreign abortion funding.


      May 26, 2009 at 12:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @strumpetwindsock: I don’t need an inspirational leader. Obama is not Oprah, and I am not an audience member looking for validation. I need the underlying rights that will ensure that I am equal. I am not asking him to be authoritarian. I am asking him to take a risk that he refuses to take. Look, I understand your point. But that’s not a Rubicon we are at yet. Where we are at is a guy who we got to push. The sooner people realize that. The better it willb e for him and us.

      May 26, 2009 at 1:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      About the economic plan, which part is a departure from bush admin, huh? Obama’s a pushover. And now his healthcare reform bullshit is going to disappear, too. You watch, obot.

      May 26, 2009 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @TANK: Okay tank if you say.

      May 26, 2009 at 1:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      And how about to prosecute bush admin official responsible for the human rights violations that occurred at gitmo? Now that’s integrity, isn’t it? A free pass…

      May 26, 2009 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      @The Gay Numbers:

      And I do. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      May 26, 2009 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      refusing to investigate and prosecute, even.

      May 26, 2009 at 1:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:

      No, you shouldn’t be fooled by that.

      And despite my extreme example I was thinking of leaders like Kennedy, Lincoln, Churchill and Trudeau, whose actual records are a quite different than our memories of how they inspired the people.

      And by contrast we forget some achievements by leaders who are not so fondly remembered. Nixon, for example.

      And there is a perfect example of leaders who can be very inspirational without enacting any policy whatsoever – royalty and other heads of state (not all royalty of course, but some have had a profound effect on the people).

      It’s also kind of confusing that your President is both Executive Head and Head of State. He certainly gets more royal treatment than prime ministers do. He’s supposed to embody your perfect ideal, and yet to do his job he has to be mired in the partisan shit, and it doesn’t work too well.

      The Germans actually had to invent a “President” as a ceremonial figurehead – essentially a replacement for the Kaiser.

      But as to your main question, remember that apocryphal story about FDR saying “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it”?

      Of course he needs pushing; real politics doesn’t work any other way. Like I said, from your words, essentially I agree with you that it’s not good to have a starry-eyed or home-team image of your politicians.

      May 26, 2009 at 1:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      What was racist about Clinton’s primary campaign? Not that I remember much about it except that it kept dragging on and on long after she’d clearly lost.

      May 26, 2009 at 3:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GBM

      All this Obot BULLSHIT is so lame. But of course you don’t want to be called a “Faggot” right hypocrites???

      May 26, 2009 at 3:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1star

      @hyhybt: Pres. Bill Clinton tried to weld Obama’s campaign to Jessie Jackson’s failed presidential run. He was attempting to convey that Jackson won a few states that had lots of African Americans, but could never have won the election: thus he accomplished nothing besides nearly disintegrating the democratic party. Heading into southern primaries Bill was just politicking and trying to instill fear that Obama couldn’t win the general election because he is Black. His plan backfired badly, an uproar ensued spanning from Clinton was race batting to he was a flat out racist; the media no friend of Clinton’s sent daggers his way. Suddenly Clinton was on his heals backtracking and trying to finger wag his way out of the gutter. Everyone knows Clinton is anything but racist, but politics is a dirty game and people do what they have to. It just turned out that as much as Clinton wanted to be he was no Lee Atwater. At the end of the day they were just politicians that wanted to win; the bulk of the Obama supporters went back to loving Clinton just as much as they did before the primary circus began. The only people that are still angry and trying to create a Obama/Clinton battle are emotionally weak and clearly don’t understand politics. Obama and Clinton are now close friends working together to create a better nation that everyone feels valued in.

      May 26, 2009 at 5:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1star

      Since I am talking about politics I should note that Obama is a politician, so if someone here thinks he going to go out there and fight a war for gays on his own they are sadly mistaken. If Clinton knew he was going to take the beating that he did fighting to allow gays to serve in the military he would have swatted gays away with a ten foot pole. There is a lot of talk about Truman and his executive order to integrate the military. He was able to do that because segregation of the army was not a law; sure Obama can suspended dismissals with an executive order but when you do things half-a**ed you end up with things like DADT. Obama wants to end DADT but the climate is not there for him to do so. In the Truman days, before Truman did anything there was a movement to integrate the army; the navy and airforce already had integration programs started. There were active duty generals and boots on the ground in the Pentagon that supported integration. African Americans, Jews, whites and others were marching in the streets demanding action and some lost there lives in the process. Even with all of that in place it still took Truman nearly two terms in office to integrate the army. Now come to the present day (less than 150 days into 44’s term) the defense department is avidly opposed to gays serving openly, and the gay community is just sitting on there tails blogging and pointing fingers. Everyone wants the President to do all the fighting why they sip margaritas in there living rooms; its not going to happen. Instead of blaming the president the community should be writing letters to the defense department and legislators. Marches should be organized to fight for the repealing of DADT & DOMA instead of for dancing in the streets in bikinis. I am not trying to be condensing or offend anyone I am just trying to state the truth; if we want rights were going to have to help President Obama fight for them. Instead of trying to frag the President for our own failures lets hit the streets and provide the cover fire he needs to advance our agenda.

      May 26, 2009 at 5:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt


      May 26, 2009 at 8:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC

      I hope Hillary follows through on this. I wonder if she will also have any input in bi-national partners joining their American partners with identical rights afforded straight couples where one is foreign born? However, lets not forget, she too like Obama is against same-sex marriage.

      May 26, 2009 at 8:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.

      The big news here is that Hauslaib actually spoke to us. I was beginning to think he didn’t really exist.

      May 26, 2009 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike

      The Secretary of State has control over the Department of State and its policies, especially internal policies such as those to do with staffing. The Secretary of State does not need the approval of the President.

      While it’s unlikely Hillary did this without telling Obama, she could have done it without him signing off on it or giving his approval, if in fact he does not approve of it.

      Some people complained that Hillary was more conservative on issues or more cautious. I didn’t care because I BELIEVED HER. When she said she would not try and repeal DOMA entirely, I believed in her because she would actually get it done, rather than Obama who said he would repeal it and has since run away from the issue. When she said she would repeal DODT with close consultation with the Pentagon, I believed her because that was her plan to get it done.

      I am glad Obama is president, but I never believed him on gay issues, and I am surprised everyone did.

      There was only one presidential candidate who has walked in every GAY PRIDE parade since she became U.S. Senator, and that’s Hillary!!

      May 26, 2009 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers

      @Mike: I won’t say much more than you have no idea what youa re talking about. State Department, indeed, no department, is a fiefdom in which the Secretary of the Department rule independent of the President. If Obama disagreed with the decision, he could have overruled it. It’s pretty sad how nuts some of these socket puppets on here are. I hope this site tries to put up something better soon.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426

      FITC: you’ve said nothing so well as you did in your post No. 84. I’d like to hear more from you like that!
      Queerty is a blog, it isn’t AP, for crissakes! For those of you that only want to read opinions that align with your own, either expand your mind or go somewhere else.
      And Queerty? You DO need a proofreader, cuz it’s getting pretty hard to read some of this without an interpreter. just sayin’.

      May 26, 2009 at 12:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ch

      Ugh – I really do not want to relive the 2008 primary – but Hillary NEVER used racism to get votes. Her and her husband have a 30 year CLEAR record of supporting and promoting civil rights.

      The Obama campaign used the race card against Hillary and Bill Clinton and how sad it was that 2 people who have done so much for civil rights were trashed and race baited by his campaign.

      Lower than dirt!

      May 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426

      Sorry I meant post No. 85

      May 27, 2009 at 11:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426

      Remember that interview with Hillary, when they told her many people thaught Obama was Muslim and asked her if it was true and she gave some kind of flip ‘I’m not sure’ answer?
      Yes the Clintons had a great record supporting civil rights, but when their backs were against the wall in that election, they, and some people stumping for them did some pretty shameful things.

      May 27, 2009 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Athansor

      @edgyguy1426: No, edgyguy1426, I don’t remember that because it didn’t happen. You are referring to an interview on 60 Minutes, by the way. Clinton was asked and answered quite clearly that Obama was Christian 3 times and never once uttered the words “I’m not sure.”

      May 27, 2009 at 11:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Inukumaru

      This gay novel has pretty extreme views about religion and being gay all done in a sci-fi style sory, the writer was even almost killed when this book was first published. After being banned in his own country it is now available.
      check the plot – As predicted by Isaac Newton the second coming happened and as the world waited to see what was about to happen an appointed man was sent to meet God, hours later God had vanished and the man came out immortal; no apocalypse, no destruction and no salvation. This gave birth to a chain of holy wars that almost chattered Earth’s civilizations and so giving birth to a mass colonization of planets to ensure peace by separation. Thousands of years later all was at peace by until Endings were born; humans connected to their planets in such a way that they are capable of destroying them should they wish it. Now Earth’s Ending has been born and the day to pass judgment draws near.
      it can be found here


      Apart from that it is very hard to find

      May 29, 2009 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.