-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/barney-frank-throws-us-under-bus-lauds.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Sorry you have to go through it *Sigh*
Please go out and buy and read the book Civilities and Civil Rights, Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom by William H. Chafe. It is a quick read. It exactly parallels what is going on in the gay community now. The so called "liberal" white elite used their liberal reputation to effectively delay any implementation of integration including co-opting prestigious members of the black community. Every time the Blacks got "uppity", the white elite calmed them down by promising change if you "just give us time." They came up with some little thing like Obama just did and then it was back to normal. A couple years later same thing would happen. It took the youth, especially in the black colleges, to force the issue. "Liberal" Greensboro was one of the last cities in the south to integrate its schools. We, the gay community, are being co-opted and Joe Solomonese's attendence at this Obama meeting today after writing that scathing letter just proves it. We need fighters, John. Don't give up because they are doing everything in their power to co-opt us.
People like John, Robin Tyler, Cleve Jones, Michael Petrelis, etc. I hope they are orginizing and strategizing in the background and putting as much heat as possible on anyone still thinking of attending.
The fundraiser needs to be a complete failure and we need to get maximum media exposure.
How the hell can he 'reread' a brief he says he never read in the first place???
If politicians (read "Democrats") can be cavalier with the rights of one person or one group, they can be cavalier with anyone's. And if they can lie about their commitment to the rights of one group, they can lie about their commitment to the rights of anyone.
at least with the republicans you know where they stood. Obama lied to everyone who voted for and got him in the white house.
Promised Transparency in Government - Lie
Promised No Lobbyists or Donors in Government - Lie
Promised to End Torture - Executive Order Closing
Guantanamo contained provision to continue Renditions outside U.S. borders - Lie
Promised To End Iraq War immediately - then extended that to 16 months - then extended that to 23 months - Lie
Promised to Strip Telecom's of immunity in the new FISA Act - Lie
Promised to repeal Patriot Act - voted for it - Lie
Promised to end indefinite detention of prisoners - Lie
Promised to undue the damage to America's image - pressured U.K. not to release evidence of Bush Admniinstration war crimes under threat of cutting off Amerucan cooperatin with British intelligence - Lie
Promised to fight for Civil Rights for LGBT community - Lie
We have another puppet of the Global Corporate Elite and everyone should be very scared. He's a well spoken, charismatic man, but he is not the man we thought we were voting for. It is time for a visceral barometer reading. We are in very dangerous territory and it is time to consider REALITY.
We live in a digital age and that means government can cut off communications in the blink of an eye. We just witnessed it as the State Department directed Twitter to hold off system maintenance to assist the Iranian opposition. If switching it off is that easy, we can all be cut off going forward.
Things are just that fucking easy in your world.
So when has Obama said he will not renegotiate NAFTA? When did he ever promise to do so in the first 5 months of his presidency?
When did Obama ever promise to "end the war immediately"? He always said that he'd consult with the generals.
I never once heard him talk about repealing the Patriot Act.
He has ended torture and the rendition program goes way the hell back before Bush.
Basically because he hasn't accomplished everything in 5 months he's a complete failure.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/...
Obama could end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy today, this instant, by executive order.
He doesn't need more time to do that.
In fact, he could have done it on January 21st. But he didn't. He could have done it in February, and March, and April, and May, and two minutes ago, and he didn't.
The whole "Obama needs more time" is utter bullshit.
We have allowed the Democrats get away with this crap for so long they don't even see how it's a problem anymore.
Withholding money gets their attention today, but the only thing that will really, seriously get their long-term attention is jeopardizing their fucking jobs and their grip on power.
Go to the polls and vote. Vote for third-parties, write-in candidates, whatever. It doesn't really matter beyond the fact that the DNC can count those votes and do the math.
Elections are won and lost on tiny percentages. We can be that tiny percentage that makes a difference, but we have to actually USE this political power.
The Nadering of Gore got their attention, didn't it?
I believe we may have arrived at another turning point. It is still early days, but I sense there has been a shift in the mood of a significant and highly vocal segment of our community as we have made the unpleasant and highly painful realization that we have - once again - simply been strung along by the Democratic party. There's a reason that "con man" stands for confidence - for the con artist trades on people's willingness to believe the lies they are told, to place their confidence in the swindler.
During the years leading up to Stonewall, Mattachine did the hard work of laying the foundation for the gay rights movement. They carefully cultivated relationships with politicians (who seldom reciprocated) and were careful to avoid rocking the boat too much. Mattachine knew well the hatred and ignorance that was out there, and they feared it. Their fear dictated their actions and their approach: cultivate a meek, unthreatening image, avoid confrontations with the authorities at all cost, and gradually build acceptance over time. Mattachine did achieve some successes, but it was a limited vehicle at best. The Stonewall riots horrified Mattachine and they did their best to try to pacify the community and stop the rioting. Within a matter of weeks after the riot, they had virtually ceased to exist. As Carter eloquently points out, the old wineskin was incapable of containing the new wine. Mattachine's successor organizations - the Gay Liberation Front and especially the Gay Activist Alliance - succeeded where Mattachine had failed, and for the simple fact that the new activist organizations refused to allow their fears to dictate their actions. By taking an in-your-face approach, choosing confrontation and "zaps" over accomodation, and nurturing the nascient lesbian and gay identity, GAA became the model for successful gay activism.
By making such a crass and transparently political calculation, Barney Frank has committed the same mistake that Mattachine made. He has overvalued his relationship with the Democratic power establishment over his relationship with our community - and in so doing, he has forgotten his roots. Had he spoken up for our community by giving voice to the pain that ordinary gay couples feel over DOMA, we would have rallied around him as a natural leader. But by defending Obama's indefensible legal brief, he has placed himself at odds with his own community. He will not lose everyone's support - our community is not monolithic - but at this very moment in history, Barney Frank was handed a rare opportunity to rise to the occasion and become a truly great leader. Instead, he has revealed himself as just another crass politician.
The old wineskin is incapable of containing the new wine.
Just as the community turned away from Mattachine after Stonewall, so we will choose other leaders if they will not reliably stand up for us. It will first happen silently, in people's hearts, then it will loudly explode in the blogosphere.
Homophobic hatred and ignorance cannot be overcome by avoidance or compromise. It must be confronted. Although the road difficult and painful, and paved with many setbacks, we will ultimately prevail. We always have. We did not get to this point as a movement by patiently waiting for supposedly "friendly" politicians to honor their campaign promises. During our great strides forward - Stonewall, the civil rights ordinances of the 70s and 80s, AIDS activism, and now gay marriage - our self-appointed "leaders" have all-too-often been found in the rear, urging us to slow down, be patient, swallow our anger and our pride, and not rock the boat. We have seldom, if ever, gotten anywhere by listening to such counsel, or by worrying about the potential for a backlash.
New wineskins for new wine.
Thank you very much.
It should be a diary over at dkos or somewhere.
membership@hrc.org.
The Democrat party considers us useful idiots. And as long as we continue to be useful, they'll keep on treating us like idiots.
No money, no votes, and if that results in the rest of the country suffering through a blighted conservative presidency next time, so be it.
They can burn with us. Scorched earth policy. Either we get our rights, or the Dems lose power and the ability to dominate news cycles.
--------
June 17, 2009
Dear Mr. President,
I watched with dismay your announcement this afternoon that you were signing an order to provide some limited benefits to some gay, federal employees. These benefits are too little, too late after the months of silence from you on the many promises you made the gay community during your campaign. The brief in support of DOMA that you filed last week was the last straw. The incest and under-age marriage cases cited in that brief to support the governments interest in outlawing recognition of same-sex marriages were extremely degrading and hurtful to me and my husband.
I simply do not understand how you can say tonight, as you did in your campaign, that you believe DOMA is discriminatory and, at the same time, not make any acknowledgment of the arguments made in that brief. To make matters worse, today, press secretary Gibbs was asked directly whether you supported the incest references in that brief and his answer was, "it's the president's Justice Department." Mr. Gibbs did nothing to backtrack the vile arguments made in the brief.
As a result of how terribly this whole debacle has been handled, I am sad to tell you that I no longer believe anything you have to say on this or any other issue. All you have done is simply pledge once again to take some action at some undetermined time. Your lack of any significant follow-through on DOMA, ENDA, and DADT have proven to me that I cannot trust you. You were only paying lip service to us when you needed our votes, campaign work, and money. You have shown no leadership whatsoever for our civil rights since you took office. I find that quite ironic given the historic significance of your election.
The country has moved beyond you on ENDA and DADT, and many states have done so on marriage equality. With control of both houses of Congress, there is simply no excuses anymore for the Democratic party to fulfill it's promises. You do not need Republican votes and no matter how much you compromise with them, they have shown you they will not support your agenda anyway.
My husband and I donated thousands of dollars to you and numerous other Democratic candidates during the last election. Given the party's and your betrayal of us, we are resigning from the Democratic party and will no longer provide any support. We will seek out candidates from other parties who have a proven track record of action on gay civil rights. Should you and the Democrats finally deliver on your promises, we will reconsider our support.
But until then, we no longer believe what you tell us. In the meantime, we are flying to DC next week to protest at the DNC fundraiser at the Mandarin Hotel.
If all the progressives alienated by the movement to the left of the Democratic party found commonality with some element of the disaffected Republican base, we could actually elect third party candidates in the next election.
What is we took over the Libertarian Party? It's not that big and a deliberate coalition of sexual minorities, civil liberties champions, and social moderate Republicans might be able to change the party platform enough to make it appealing to those who expected to see real change in the administration. We might even be able to find some very attractive candidates-- Dan Choi, Pam Spaulding, and Cyd Zeigler coming immediately to mind-- that could draw voters not previously reached by either progressives or Libertarians.
And then the unicorns can all fly around and sing.
But it was fun to imagine.
We could take the Neo Dems and the Neo Reps and form the...uh...wait, it's coming...Yes! I've got it!
The Centrist Party!
(Actually, it would be the Corporatist Party, but we'll keep that our little secret)
Oh darn. I think the Clintons beat us to it.
Bear Frank's behavior, and Obama's, in mind when you evaluate the truth in and the intent behind everything else they say. I trust they mean the rest of their promises and believe the rest of their beliefs as deeply as the promises and beliefs that were broken and betrayed here out of political expediency.
Of course, the Republican analogues to Frank and Obama are just as bad. Politicians lie and are self-interested folks who spend others' money.
I'm sorry for the pain of the current cognitive dissonance you're going through, with Frank throwing you under the bus. But, between adults, did you really think it would turn out any different? If yes, really?!? Seriously?!?
I've got little respect for the Republican party. I have a great deal of respect for conservative (little c, philosophy class conservative) thought. That respect is due in large measure to the fact that conservative thought realizes that people are people, meaning that individuals are fallible and prone to self-interest. So, conservatism looks to structural checks and balances to avoid the fallibility of one person taking down the system.
The need for those checks and balances applied to Reagan as much as they do to Obama.
Both Reagan and Obama needed / need to be checked in power. The difference, I think, is that Reagan knew it and acquiesced to the structure as a philosophical choice. Obama hires Rahm "Don't Waste A Crisis" Emmanuel to circumvent those checks.
To bring this home to this crowd.... Revisit the results of Prop 8. You can protest Mormons all you want, but the reality of it is that Democratic-leaning blacks and latinos voted Prop 8 in. As between these three voting blocks, which two do you think Obama, Rahm, Pelosi, Reid and every other Democratic power broker will choose: (1) blacks, (2) latinos, (3) gays?
I'm in favor of equal partnership rights for gays, but, frankly (pun intended) can't take gay activism seriously because it is so knee-jerkedly Democratic (e.g., voting for Frank) and so intellectually dishonest (e.g., railing against Mormons in the CA, rather than the blacks and Latinos who actually voted the bill down). If you want to be treated fairly, grow a fucking set and call it like you know it to be politically when you vote. And if you haven't puzzled through the CA Prop 8 vote demographics on your own, grow a brain first, then a set, and vote accordingly. And, also, think about why you're so loathe to conclude that other minorities were the reason behind the Prop 8 vote and what that might mean about identity politics and a whole lot of other stuff.
And get the buff cowboys in the assless-chaps off of your floats during Gay Pride parades. You've got more to be proud about than that, but that's what is visible to the world at large.
Funding and votes are different things. Both are realities of our electoral process. I don't know the nitty-gritty specifics of the Prop 8 vote in CA. Are you suggesting that the Mormons funded the vote of the blacks and latinos in CA? If no, what does your post mean? If yes, where is your evidence? If yes, isn't that pretty denigratory of the intellectual agency of the folks (i.e., the blacks and latinos) pulling the lever in the voting booth under the cover of anonymity? Arguendo, Mormons airdrop cash on CA to quash the vote, that airdrop absolves the folks pulling the lever in the (anonymous) voting booth from the results?!?!
Rainbow, you seem to be constructing mental strawmen with which to shadowbox.
"Campaign of lies" is conclusory, along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?"
And your line about my understanding of campaigns suggests your more interested in the allocation of power to your camp, as opposed to ordering society in a fashion that lets folks do what they can.
I'm guessing you were hall monitor in your grade school. And that it sucked to go that grade school.
Mormons directly and indirectly channeled $20 million into that campaign.
Most, if not all, claims by the yes campaign were lies. I challenge you to name a talking point of theirs that wasn't.
Voters in general are stupid. The latino community was split down the middle, same as the white community. As for the black community, 57% of 6% is not enough to tip the scales on these things.
I was not a hall moniter in grade school, I hated them same as anyone else. Arizona schools just suck in general.
Last but not least, no one's falling for your race-baiting.
(1) "Voters in general are stupid." Your words. I may or may not agree with you, but someone who says that is not interested in the democratic process. Which is surprising (to me). I believe in the vote and abiding by it. Yet I'm a white hetero male. The oppressor class. Fancy that.
(2) Arizona schools.... I lived in Mesa for two years. I have fond memories of AZ, primarily b/c I thought the Superstition Mtns. looked cool as hell. The schools, ? Didn't like it, but that's just me.
(3) "Race-baiting"?!? I have done nothing approaching anything close to being out of bounds with respect to irrational / prejudiced discussion of race, or other protected classes. If I state a statistical fact about voting patterns that you don't like, that does not amount to "race-baiting". Particularly, when you respond with specific, race-based percentages. Give me a break.
Second of all, you specifically laid the blame for the passage of prop8 on racial minorities in an attempt to shift the blame from the mormons. That is text-book race-baiting.
Let's see, there are an estimated 700,000 Mormons that live in California. Too bad so sad (I suppose) that we do not have any sort of polling breakdown by religious denomination. I wonder what percentage of those ~700,000 voted for Proposition 8?
That plus $20 million donated by members of the Mormon Church...hmmm...
And just what is this animus that the Senate Majority Leader seems to have against African American elected officials from the state of Illinois? Let's see, three are unelectable and, therefore, should not have been selected to replace the outgoing Senator. The fourth who was selected (who really is corrupt) is fought against tooth and nail in spite of being lawfully selected (nah-nah, Blago played you!) and that 5th Illinois African American elected official (whom backed the SML as regards to the 4th AA elected official) seems to all of a sudden be a punting partner for the SML as regards to DADT.
So what is it with the SML and Illinois elected officals that happen to be African American? Is it 1) Ancestral Memory at getting kicked out of the state over 150 years ago or 2) Does the SMH feel that these particular Illinois elected officials have underdeveloped souls?
I'm straight, which means that the Mormons I've met and known don't come gift-wrapped in a bike-helmet knocking on my door. I don't think that the women go on missionary like the guys do.
But, Mormon jokes aside (and I capitalize it out of respect for the many Mormons I've met, even though I don't believe what they do).... You dodged the serious points in my earlier post about identity politics, the tension that poses to Democratic coalitions, etc. Instead, in a bold, stereotype-busting move, you commented on the sexual attractiveness of Mormon (or, in your email, mormon) boys.
Okay, that's another data point, I guess.
"Obama has refused to take any concrete steps toward a repeal of a policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, even though as a candidate he pledged to scrap the Clinton-era rules. He similarly has refused to step in and block the dismissal of gays and lesbians who face courts-martial for disclosing their sexual orientation, arguing that the only lasting ways would be for Congress to act."
I just love the whole:
"I can't do anything because the only lasting ways would be for Congress to act."
Who the hell CARES if its "lasting?" They know good and well once its done it wouldn't be UNDONE / overturned because the American people are FOR IT! Even CONSERVATIVES voters are for getting rid of DADT. STOP LOSS EXECUTIVE ORDER now!
By the way, do I know you in the Democratic Party? You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Oklahoma Democratic Party veteran's committee would you?
David Jacobson
Cleveland Heights, OH
It was Scott Rasmussen that determined that Conservatives were the largest political group in the US. Sorry to let you in on that little secret.
I love the cannabalism displayed here. You and your little friends are eating each other alive. It's just wonderful to watch.
As far as my granting permission for anything, you've got the wrong cat, 'cause that's not my role. Obviously, the ability to read escaped you in gay school. OBAMA is your guy, not mine, so you can try to blame Bushitler-Cheney-Rove all you want. I'll just sit back and watch and laugh. Bush was actually a lot like you, he stuck it up the butt of Conservatives at every opportunity. Little Johnny McCain has been doing the same thing for a couple of decades. I would think that you'd at least like it this way.
I didn't think a blowhard such as yourself would not respond. I guess you decided to stop by to blow off a little more steam . . . Well, have a go at it, your insults do not bother me in the least. Good luck with those right winged Talibangelists that are dominating your end of the Republican party, they have helped put you conservatives in the position you are presently in and look like you won't be out of for a very long time. It won't get any better until you guys get rid of your bible thumping base. Good luck with that.
Isn't that was Rush Limbaugh and other pasty white old men from the GOP do in the dominican with little boys?
I'm actually in favor of ending government's involvement with marriage. And I don't consider pedophilia and homosexuality equivalent. They aren't in the same universe. But you go right ahead, bash away.
Remember OBAMA runs the DOJ, not Bush, not Cheney, not Rove. OBAMA.
It's really sad for the left that someone like Dick Cheney, aka Darth Vader, is actually more empathetic to gay rights than The ONE.
One term homophobic president!
That's because this "outrage" is disingenuous at best. We are all disappointed in Obama's failure to defend civil rights and his actions (or lack thereof) on keeping his campaign promises with respect to gay rights. But to claim that a legal citation cited for the purpose of emphasizing the underlying legal principle somehow equates gays with the specific circumstances that happen to surround that legal principle is simply dishonest... especially for a lawyer (something you have reminded us of many times).
Moreover, your so-called "legal analysis" shares the same dishonesty. You simply cite cases, provide no details and then somehow conclude (and it is beyond debate since you and Joe are "lawyers") that a President can decide not to enforce any law he doesn't like. What you fail to mention is that in each of those 4 cases the basis of the President's opposition to the law was that they deemed it to be unconstitutional and NOT that they "didn't like" it.
I am completely with you on pushing the Obama administration to be the fierce advocate he claimed he was, but let's do it in an honest way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXWlVYKTvNk
Its almost 9 minutes, but it is a classic.
She needs to have John on the show.
Meanwhile, we need to shut down the 'GAY'TM and donate to AmericaBlog!
Disgusting.
Rachel also did not mention Howard Dean's suggestion Don't Ask Don't Tell should be pushed forward on the agenda. Even though she just discussed it with Howard Dean here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP76-N2qxxg
Third parties suck, but at least they never win office so you won't be betrayed.
Keep up the pressure Ablog!!
Attacking Iraq and the goodies that came with it caught me by surprise .
Even after 9/11....
Prior to that I would have agreed with you.
I actually kind of agree with you.
I never got over being pissed at the Clinton administration for which I had high hopes....
I never had high hopes for Obama's....
Age took care of that
So much for hope and change.
Wait till the polling comes in for next month, after the gays and our supporters are done, if we've done our job right, he should be around the low 50s high 40s. We'll get much more attention then.
Hopefully the gay's in Ma will take this to heart next time this BS artist is up for re-election.
If Obama does deliver on his promises later (like after he tackles universal health care, extricates us from Iraq, keeps us from sinking into a full blown depression, etc etc, all while being obstructed by the GOP) are all of you up in arms gonna pucker up and give him a big smooch then? Or will you claim that it was only because you held his feet to the fire that you got any results at all?
Like I just commented on the story asking for some dough - you're doing a great job riling up your base, but you're really turning off a lot of others. Like people who support your cause, but think you're losing it. You're not gonna win the equality you seek by alienating your fellow progressives with your Obama bashing. See, even though we agree with your goal, we think there's some other sh!t that needs to get done right now, and if it costs political capital to get something done, well, there's only so much in the checking account right now.
I would guess you're wanting a dash of inflammatory, but just telling you, I'm sure I'm not the only one that is seeing it this way.
anyway, aside from the issue of lack of progress in marriage equality, let me say I typically enjoy and agree with your insights. So even though it was in response to a somewhat confrontational comment by me, thanks for the posts over the last couple years I've been reading. So good luck, hope you win in the end, and hope I'm wrong.
You know what IS inflammatory?
Having your relationship compared to pedophilic incest because it's "analogous".
Perhaps we should merely be "disappointed" so the rest of the "progressives" can remain unruffled.
Look, I get it. I think whoever laid eyes on it and pulled the trigger on the brief needs a serious reprimand, maybe sh!tcanning. I assume they're getting one or the other based on all the fuss. I'm just trying to say you catch more flies with honey, and giving you all the opinion from someone who thinks the tack youre taking will be counterproductive. Rome wasnt built in a day, etc etc. And i see all the comments that youve been waiting a long time already. I guess its up to you if you think you ought to give Obama a little more time - like a year, i suppose, when there arent other critical mass issues going on. Take it for what its worth, its just my opinion, consider it or dont, whatever you want. So good luck with it, but as I tried to say before, if youre trying to drive traffic to the site or get others on board, you might want to consider outside opinions. Or not. Whatever.
Yeah right!
John has always talked about patience and working within the system. To see him upset tells me that we've reached the end of the line. Playing nice DOES NOT work. It has not worked the last 17-18 years and it isn't going to work now.
As if the Democrats have done so much for We The People vs. all the money Obama keeps giving to Investment Banks.
Yeah right .. be patient. NOT!
Equal rights for all Americans is apparently not a priority for you.. how could it be? You already have all your rights at birth. You have no idea what it's like, you arrogant entitled ivory tower prince.
I wish i could take every fucking one of you and shove you in the back of the bus, strip you of your rights, and make you a second class citizen.
Here's the deal. Exactly what rights do you believe that I have that you don't, and are you using them right now? When my wife and I were not yet married, I included her on my health insurance as a domestic partner. The company I worked for allowed that. I believe that they allowed it for same sex couples as well.
Isn't it more accurate to claim that youre fighting more for equality in partner rights that are conveyed through marriage? Because you, individually, have every right entitled to you at birth as an American citizen that I do. Don't you? Entitled ivory tower prince. Yeah. Go ahead, without talking about marriage, tell me all the INDIVIDUAL human rights that I have that you don't. I'm waiting.
To hear some of this b-s, you'd think you were renditioned off to some Eastern Europe country then stuck in Guantanamo. Keep it up, youre certainly building bridges this way.
Also, yes, depending on who you work for, you MAY be allowed to get benefits through domestic partnership. But, the fed government then TAXES you on them as income. Hetero married couples don't pay taxes on the benefits.
same-sex couples also can go to a lawyer and pay big bucks to get legal documents written up to obtain some oft he same bemefits as married straight. But, married straights get the benefits for FREE.
Yes, many of the rights we are fighting for are related to marriage. And, we have no access to those rights because we can't get married. You and your wife CHOSE to wait to get married. YOu chose to be domestic partners. YOu could have just as easily have chosen to get married. We don't have that choice.
But, many are NOT related to marriage.
We would like the right to not be fired for being gay. You can't be fired for being straight. The right to not be denied housing for being gay. You can't be denied housing for being straight.
Not sure about the housing issue. Although I must say that I dont ever remember a rental application asking about my sexual orientation. I thought discrimination in housing was already covered by law, but I cant say that I know that. Most large employers have anti discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. At least, the ones that I have worked for.
Now the only part of your comment i really question is about how we know that its true that obama could have extended health benefits to same sex couples. I dont KNOW that is true. I have HEARD a couple OPINIONS that it is not true, but that hardly settles it for me.
I think I'm tired of arguing about it. Its your cause, fight it however you want. If, as several others have said, you dont want or need my help or help from others like me, ok, got the message.
Please espouse what Progressive actions we have seen this administration undertake? They have lied and backtracked at every major issue. Obama is a fraud.
But you want to give up on him 6 months in, go ahead. I don't think youre going to be happy with many politicians.
You (and the rest of us) are about to get Obama'd on healthcare: he promised the public option, he'll deliver what the insurance companies (and Republicans) want, which is a healthcare Plan with no healthcare.
Bait and switch -- remember that, when you remember how you threw gays under the bus for YOUR issue.
I dont really have a single issue I'm all caught up in. When the next election rolls around, I'll evaluate the sum of his administrations accomplishments, and vote and campaign accordingly. It sure would be nice if all the shit that I cared about was all fixed before summer starts, but I guess I'll give him another couple months.
support for enacting ENDA over 70%
support for enacting Hate Crimes legislation, over 70%
No risk of spending any political capital on these issues
one of the core planks in the republican platform in elections just a few years ago was overt gay discrimination. You dont think they will use that again? and you dont think public opinion can change (especially when some real money is thrown at crafting a theme?)
taking a page from the repug playbook, huh? cant win the argument, then call names and shriek insults. sad sad sad.
Oh yeah poor obama, being "bashed".
And using progressive and Obama in the same sentence is repulsive.
And furthermore, there is ALWAYS other more important things than gay people getting equal rights. ALWAYS. We're tired of waiting. Got it???????
Somehow Obama had the time to push that toward legitimacy, push the brief that continues to defraud my gay brother and sister of their basic civil rights.
Despite Obama's campaign promises, he found time to push gay rights back, rather than forward. (If you bought the charade this afternoon, you're as big a sucker as Frank.)
Yeah, somehow Obama found the time for THAT.
Maybe Obama needs to budget his time better.
You're willing to sell out gays and their supporters now, for the carrot and stick held out on your issues. Just wait until Obama sells you out with no public option on healthcare, with a healthcare plan that keeps the insurance companies (and Republicans) happy and you without healthcare.
And leaves you holding the bag for every other progressive promise he made, every progressive value you hold.
It's a pattern, honey. And every other Democrat will get slapped in the face on every other progressive issue down the pike, if you don't help hold Obama's feet to the fire on this issue.
Or the Democratic Party will become the Party of No, and will deservedly wander in the wilderness for the next 40 years.
No one is advocating that the president drop everything to work on gay issues. We are demanding that his administration stop insulting gay people and working against us.
I don't think you intended to express bigotry by describing our struggle for civil rights as drama, but you did. Please keep engaging in the discussion-- you're the people we need to talk with. People who don't consider themselves bigoted against gay people but are genuinely uncomfortable with the some aspects of gay equality. Frankly, if the president were engaging with gay people as honestly as you are on the issue of our equality, I think most gay people would be on board.
And I am completely on board with marriage equality. I don't understand why people are against it. you would think the people that are so "keep guvment out of my business" would want just that. Ahh, the hypocrisy.
No money to Barney Frank.
No money to HRC.
No gay equality = no gay $$$ (or time or votes)
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), created and signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings, although Special Assistant to George W. Bush Gordon Johndroe answered several questions on the matter when asked about it by members of the press in early June 2007.
I've said for some time, somewhere in the pipeline, there's a smart Republican (stop snickering) who's going to buck the national party on gay equity a reap a windfall of donations like no Congressional race has seen in a long time. And if he (I think it'll be a guy) wins, he'll even press forward with a bipartisan effort to pass legislation that'll be stymied by the majority of the Republicans and the Blue Dogs (there's no downside to his doing so, and he could milk the gay ATM for most of his career). That's when the crack really becomes irreparable and the Log Cabin ceases to be a punchline. There are a LOT more gay Republicans than most people realize, and they'd drop any consideration of the Dems in a heartbeat if the Republicans would just stop running idiots for office.
Oh, and Frank was quoted this morning as saying he hopes to retire before using Twitter is a requirement. Sounds like 2010 could be his lucky year (or is replacing him as impossible as replacing Nancy Pelosi in SF is?).
It's important for LGBT folks to honestly assess what their donations are going for. Fortunately there are other groups out there fighting and winning a lot of the smaller battles for us. Lambda Legal is a worthy cause and I encourage everybody to support them.
membership@hrc.org.
Let them know why you're upset. They will take notice.
I would provide a phone number to call but they don't do that anymore. If anybody can find a phone number to call go ahead and post it.
PS: I read your article on Salon and OMG John I have to tell you when you said:
"When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free?"
I had tears in my eyes and still do!
We love you, John!!
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
My take: http://teristirades.blogspot.com/2009/06/doma-d...
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/chairma...
Lawdork seems to take this way too personally and gets involved in minutiae, the trees rather than the forest of the issues involved. And his point that John advocated not filing the brief at all, as a major point, is in error. The incest claim is really splitting hairs any way one brings it up - but the mere fact it was IN THERE is half the insulting part, the other half being more subtle as if one goes through it all the whole premise of Federal recognition of states' marriages is NOT SUPPORTED by raising these cases so it's either additionally gratuitous or additionally gratuitous and incompetent.
...Lawdork gets this I think but then wants credit for the discovery rather than John and this blog. Lawdork may have a fine legal mind, but perhaps is more correct than intended when he names himself "dork" as well. Social and political analysis: not his forte.
I do not think this is about credit. Not about personality though that is another layer and even the title of this particular thread. Let's keep our focus on the forest rather than the branches of individual offending trees eh?
All that needed to be said (not that saying anything could undo the filed brief) was what Obama said today that DOMA IS discriminatory. And though it would have been far far better five fucking days ago, it is in stark contradiction to the brief that unbelievably says it's not. The brief went too far. It went places that make no sense. It went to deliberately insulting places that made no sense. It went there without the administration's awareness nor plans for cleanup afterward which is, beyond the 'gay' aspect of the event, appalling. Right wing bloggers and the "basest of right wing tactics" use opinions and emotions, not facts. The emotions here are supported by facts. This post includes angry conclusions and opinions based on ugly facts. Truths. Truths we deserve to debate.
You defend Frank, he defends the brief. It is about the BRIEF, Frank is just getting in the way. His role has so far must have included some self-anesthetizing from experiencing pain from injustice because he deals with it every day. Our role is to say "ouch" when we've been slapped. Not apologize to the slapper.
So I honestly could have told people he was like this, if only they would listen. Now they know.
I have a non-extraordinary level of sympathy for those who saw all the signs (McClurkin, anyone?) and still believed the BS. You were had, not by him, but by your own misguided fantasies of who he was.
Honest to G-d, I'm sick to death of the "you were had!" bullshitters. Everyone wants to have "known it all." Well, there was nothing about the McClurkin fiasco that made me vote FOR him, but I also wasn't going to vote for someone like Hillary Clinton who used the "Obama is a San Francisco Democrat!" and, with her husband, created "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Its a damned institutionalized problem with the "power elites" in Washington and, yes, I'm sorry but I HOPED for better. So shoot me for HOPING for better but don't accuse me, or others, of being naive or having fantasies.
Again, I suffered because of Clinton's awful handling of integrating gays in the military. Hillary was part of his administration and giving him advice. The entire time I was begging for him to grow a pair and issue an EXECUTIVE ORDER integrating the military, but he wanted to "build consensus" and we got screwed with Don't Ask / Don't Tell via Senator Sam Nunn. After Hillary claimed Obama was a "San Francisco Democrat" and then lied about getting shot at in Bosnia, for no apparent reason, I felt I could not trust her to even win the election, and I am NOT sorry McCain / Palin didn't win.
As has been pointed out, Hillary was just as bad or worse and had other BIG problems. I was an idiot John Edwards supporter, not that I was particularly keen about him, but he was the only seemingly viable candidate who was not bought & paid for by the mega corps. The other candidates did not seem to have any chance at winning.
It's politics. Did I think Obama would be this bad? Close, but not quite. T (above) is right about the arrogant ego problems and the hatefulness. The only thing that is going to be accomplished by the "I told u so" is to shake some good people out of their continuing denial.
Then all of us need to get about using Obama's ego investment to shame him into living up to his broad commitments.
Oh, yes we can.
Meanwhile, the Right Wing can't claim the Obama ignores the law the same way it has been claimed that GWB ignored the law.
The SCOTUS has done very well recently calling baloney by its real name in several civil rights cases. They even overturned a previous decision (Bowers v. Hardwick) in Lawrence v. Texas. And, this is not exactly a left-leaning court.
No, it isn't a bold statement by the president. Bold statements by the president aren't the last word in the US, though. Giving the SCOTUS a chance to debunk the arguments will lay a constitutional framework for removing DADT and other problematic legislation at the state and federal levels.
I'm in it for the long haul victory.
not saying that I presume to know that was the reasoning behind the move, but it is refreshing to see someone else is not demanding instant results.
The line about DOMA being 'neutral' because gay people are free to marry the opposite sex was the most galling, IMHO.
Sorta like Michell Gold here: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11495/the-g...
Well, unlike Michell, at least Tammy isn't also going to promote her book.
i'm sick of all the political hooey from the white house. what's right is right and the right thing should've been done a long time ago.
Current case is an example.
DNC and state dems get nothing.
Let your state dems know that if they aren't going to move on gay rights, your dollars dry up. Like mine have.
Good!
They bought him somehow. Now the message has been created.. gays are whiners
Of Democrats - I trust Kucinich. I think I would trust Franken, the heir of Wellstone whom I also trusted. Like I actually trusted McCain too, long ago. (I was wrong about McCain.) Those who put their party first (like McCain, like Frank) have missed the point of why they are there, whom they serve, and what the country they purportedly live in stands for.
Obama's role as HEAD of the Executive Branch is different than a member of the legislative branch or as a subordinate member of the executive - HE is the boss, the "decider" for lack of a better word. (It is the best word in this context.) He is SUPPOSED to have and use his discretion in enforcing laws - and YES even NOT enforcing some or contradicting some for good reason. Fairness is a good reason. Let the courts decide as they may. Let Congress twist in the wind - it seems that's all it's doing anyway right now. Meanwhile a portion of our society is WITHOUT equal rights and protections under the law = ALL Americans are diminished. No law-nerd bullshit about how their duty is to 'do their job to the utmost' like they are in some civics class or something. Don't need a condescending lecture. Do need full and fair Civil Rights.
I would rather have a few real friends at my side than a hundred fake ones who are obviously no good in a fight yet eat our food and use our stuff and always have their hands out. The 'enemy' is a bunch of conservative adulterous corrupt fools who are almost pathologically afraid of their own shadows as they look toward re? election after their party ruined America and was trounced and is not gaining in popularity. They know the 'gay scare' is rapidly loosing it's power and they WILL capitulate easily if they can do it in a herd. These people we need to fear and fight? NO - it is our fake friends still entrenched in cold-war style power politics who are most of the problem.
This is one more, of a long, long list, of examples of what happens when you are so loyal that your votes can be taken for granted.
Only a Republican will deliver equal rights for gays.
Cheney in '12
PLEASE, brothers and sisters, STOP the madness of just voting D D D D D D D and start looking for pols who speak the truth, even if it pisses you off. I would much rather have a pol who says he/she is either undecided or even anti gay causes because at least it starts a conversation on an honest footing. I personally have persuaded more anti folk to take another look, if not bluntly changed their minds, predicated on an earnest debate than I will ever run out of liar D pols who say one thing on the campaign trail and vote another.
WAKE UP
I'm sick of this "No We Can't!" message of Obama's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXWlVYKTvNk
Wake up soon or there's nothing but further diminishment to come.
Sorry.
Shut the hell up.
It amazes me that Dick Cheney is more open to gay marriage than Obama. And yet no gay person I know will acknowledge this, because, God forbid, it shows a tolerant Republican.
You have to ask yourselves, why would you spend time, effort, and money supporting only one party when they will consistently throw you under the bus?Star voting for the GOP and force the Dems to compete for your votes.
We are saying we are giving up on both parties, so the GOP fundraisers now flooding into here trying to clean up can leave now. We aren't going to be giving any $'s to you, either.
By all means, form a third party devoted exclusively to gay rights and see how well you do. I'm just trying to give some advice (as are the other "GOP fundraisers", whatever that means). Absolutely, let your unremitting hatred of Dick Cheney to cloud your thinking. BTW, sure, Bush and Cheney gave lip-service to DOMA, but Bush never let it go anywhere in Congress, which actually makes him less hostile to gay rights than either Clinton or Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriag...
Now WHO was in control of congress, I forgot?
Democrats joined it, as well, but you can't seriously think we are going to join the Republican Party? If you are... heh... keep dreaming.
That is the part that pisses me off the most -- HRC and Frank have been around the Capitol forever, and yet they still don't have enough clout to secure one basic human constitutional right for us?
If you consistently vote for Democrats even as they consistently play you for the fool, expect them to not change their behavior.
You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. For instance, if the Republican Party continuously claims LGBT are second class citizens and don't deserve equal rights they just might not ever get our votes.
Granted, we were played, but don't start trying to tell me you are extrapolating game theory into this example of a two party system where one party promises us rights, then tries to give us crumbs or then stabs us in the back and the other is outright hostile to us, and TRY to get us to vote for the hostile party by claiming you have some kind of special knowledge about game theory, you lying idiot.
so no. i won't be taking your advice.
G'BYE!!!
Hell, if Solmonese starts losing $$$, you might actually see him behave like a man for the first time ever! He'll be a million times more vocal and fierce about losing his power than he EVER was against Maggie Gallagher or any of the other antigay slander he's "confronted".
NO EQUAL RIGHTS, NO GAY DOLLARS.
I say that just because you're leading the charge on this one and I fear it undermines your wholly valid point to be using such alarmism.
This has already been accepted and understood by heavy hitting lawyers from previous administrations and abroad.
Why aren't you outraged that first cousins, legally married in New Mexico, aren't recognized as such in Arizona?
Why aren't you equally outraged that a sixteen year old who is legally married in Indiana isn't recognized as such in New Jersey?
It has nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with the excision of State's Rights.
Terming it "equating homosexuality with incest and pedophilia" is so Right Wing hyperbolic of you that it does nothing to sway me over to your side on this one, John.
Close family members (cousins) are not allowed to marry because the children of those relationships have a high probabilty of medical problems because of closeness ofthe gene pool. Underage marriage is a problem because the underage person doesn't have the ability to enter into a marriage contract with full understanding of what they are getting into. They lack the maturity.
Now, what is the VALID reason for a state to not recognize a same-sex marriage?
Would you cite those two cases in order to justify a state denying the marriage of people with red hair? No, because there is no valid reason to deny the marriage of people with red hair.
So, what is the valid reason to deny same-sex marriage? If these cases are really analagous, there must be a valid reason.
And, remember, despite what Obama say, gawd can't be in the mix, religious beliefs are NOT a valid reason.
What they are saying by citing these cases is that same-sex marriage is NO BETTER than an incestuous marriage.
The DOMA means that Arizona doesn't have to legally recognize marriages that were held in Massachusetts. The incest angle was simply an example of why they can't pick and choose which marriages to force everyone to accept.
KEEP IN MIND I say this as a 100% backer of gay marriage, and also a 100% backer of non-alarmist rhetoric.
Are you saying they would cite these cases and then claim it was OK for Arizona to not recognize the marriages of heterosexuals over the age of 55, for example?
Or, would they just say, fuck it, we know there isn't a valid reason for Arizona to deny the marriages of heteros over 55? We aren't crazy enough to even make this argument?
And, any judge reading this assinine brief, should come to the same conclusion.
And, I may be wrong in my memeory, but I believe the Iowa supreme court said that gays dind't even need to be defined as a suspect class in order for the court to recognize there was NO VALID REASON for the state to deny marriage equality. In fact they said the stated reasons were nothing more than "cover" for overt bigotry.
They're only analogous in that they involve a marriage that is unrecognized in area A moving into area B and legally area B is not forced to accept it.
Reason being, according to the Obama administration, is that it would then mean if one state legalized ANY kind of marriage, then it would be de facto legal everywhere.
You have to step back and examine the case from all angles for a moment, even if (like me) you're a 100% supporter of gay marriage.
And, it says because it is legal for a state to deny a marriage that is medically dangerous and one that is bad because a participant doesn't meet the age of consent, then the state should also be able to deny this other BAD kind of marriage.
Look, whether there is a difference of opinion on what analagous means, is irrelevant at this point I think. It has been well established by now that the DOJ wan not legally required to submit a brief at all. And, if they still wanted to file one, it didn't have to include this homophobic language. It could have contained the argument against "standing" and stopped right there.
But, what we now know they did was to slightly modify and recycle the old Bush brief.
You obviously had this story before anyone by what seems like at least a couple of weeks. I recall you had a post two weeks ago in which you were "paging Rachel Maddow" with a big Batman signal. Was this the issue that you wanted to reach her about?
It seems you have a source in either the DOJ or the White House who was appalled at what was to be filed and they reached out to you to get the word out.
Please tell us what you can. Keep up the good work.
Barack Obama will come through for gay rights. I have my frustrations, understand the concern. But the hysteria, the sense of victimization, the screaming distortions (which make Drudge seem call and fair) of the last few days take away from some very good initial work John et al have done here.
I am sure their traffic is way up and don't claim they don't believe what they are writing, and that they are being helpful.
But this gay man is far closer to Andrew Sullivan (who is also upset) and even Kos (who just wrote on this, more calmly). And after 7 years or so of visiting this site daily, having contributed money in the past, I am getting as upset with Americablog as I am with the Obama administration, so I'm taking a break from here so my blood pressure doesn't rise too much.
Thanks for all the good work in the past, I hope to be back here in the future when sanity and a sense of controlled purpose and anger return.
You want to continue to believe in your savior who invoked incest and child raping in regards to your relationships, that's fine. But when we get pissed about such comparisons, a lack of action from the bully pulpit, not even kind words on our most historic victory in Iowa, and the only talk of gay in the white house being a proclamation about fucking pride month, please don't tell us we're being hysterical victims who are screaming distortions.
Now go, take your break. While you're breaking we'll be fighting for more than the bread crumbs you're content on chewing with a smile on your face.
Don't forget to donate to HRC while telling them what great leadership they're showing.
The opinion has been accepted across the fucking board. Jesus, get a goddamned clue.
Even past administration legal counsels have weighed in with it.
Please provide links.
How Barney Frank of you not to.
As far as the rest goes, I'd say you're probably lying. I read Americablog daily and have surfed blogs on this very topic and there is no one but Aravosis - who is a lawyer - who is reading the brief that way.
So if you have links provide them otherwise I'm going to assume that you're a liar. Not that I care if you are since you're not a lawyer and your opinion about what a legal brief should or should not contain isn't that meaningful.
I don't see any cyber credentials blinking over your words.
Enjoy the irony.
Why am I explaining this to a LAWYER? *snorts*
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/3mer/2mer/...
You wrote:
"...some from the DOJ even."
Yeah, written like a real brilliant legal mind with a mastery of the English language.
As I was saying: We crawl out from law school (where did you learn your legal writing, research and reasoning?) and what other attorney shares the opinion that citing case law = moral equivalency between the parties?
Again: Please provide links.
A gay lawyer may be a lawyer, but he is gay first.
Oh, really? Then who the fuck are you billing for your time posting on this site.
Stop thinking like an attorney and start thinking like a politician.
If nothing else, the last administration has shown us how little the law means when it interferes with public perceptions.
This issue will be settled in the courts not Congress. Hyberbolic arguments will lose in court and simply harm the case.
Basically this entire argument can be summed up:
Obama needs to be more like Bush!!!!
But here is my suggestion to be sent to the Human Rights Campaign, President Obama, AND the DNC!
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb216/davehe...
membership@hrc.org.
PHILIP ELLIOTT | Associated Press Writer
9:14 PM EDT, June 17, 2009
Here is the article http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld...
Just because Obama is wrong doesn't come close to making their idiotic voting twice for Bush right, or their votes for McCain / Palin. Things would be NO different for us than they are now. No, I take that back, had McCain and Ms. Talibangelical had their way things would be WORSE for the LGBT community.
Are we not supposed to comment on the things he does wrong?
What kind of asinine position is that.
I guess we could get into a big discussion about who decides if something is done wrongly......
yes, an asinine position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balance...
Executive:
- Faithfully executes the laws of the United States
- Executes the instructions of Congress
We have a president who is acting in accordance with his job description.
Polis' people were happy to hear my encouragement and were clearly happy with the leadership their boss, the freshman, was showing.
(I guess that means he hates himself.)
You have to admit, they have a damned good gig!
"Because the gays has been always for the gays, period! That is my experience with them, for if nothing isn't in it for them, they don't give a hoot."
I, of course, as "Tim" couldn't let that one pass!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/o...
As to viable options, I don't think working quietly within the party will accomplish anything quickly enough, third party is an exercise in futility, repubs are too infected with religious haters.
The repubs seem consistently effective getting the democrats to pull back and surrender on a host of issues by mounting full court press in the media and opinion polls aggressively and hard enough to control the meme -- and staying at it.
I think we've gotten that started on this appalling legal brief and Obama's lack of progressive performance. That's where I think we might get traction.
Idea: a coalition of many progressive niches who have been lied to and already cheated by slick Obama? Hammering at him constantly with demands to step up. It would be far more difficult to dismiss that kind of action with "oh those queers are never satisfied."
And, as many have pointed out, current tactics in Iran are worthy of note.
However..... the level of maturity on that blog (from most of the posters on that thread) was remarkably, well, absent.
Even the trolls here seem to step up a bit - I think I am spoiled by being here. The last link to relevant offsite political blogging I was baited to go see was during the campaign (I think it was you who did it) was to a PUMA site that made my eyes bleed. I like to check out political blogs-I've-never-been-to every now and then, but I couldn't help hearing the sound of fans going wild for the Bay City Rollers as I read the my.barackobama.com. I think I'll just keep sticking to the press releases and speech transcripts for now. THANKS
From a gay right-winger (libertarian class)
Grow up. Either that, or grow a pair.
Breasts or balls, you pick.
Can you at least get in line with the 21st century????
My god.
Take that back. That's not helping our cause in any means.
Like it always is.
Perhaps with the understanding that WE are a big mistake????
Fuck the political establishment.
One thing Obama got right - change starts from the bottom up. He's gonna hate himself for having said that, 'cause it's gonna bite him in the ass. No pun intended.
Change will indeed come from the grassroots. Well, what happens when we withhold the fertilizer????
So Barney Frank needed just one trip to the White house and then came out and stabbed you in the back, eh?
Geez. And people get all pissed when I mention the incredible histrionics here.
It couldn't be perhaps that Barney Frank learned something that he didn't before he discussed this personally with Obama and that perhaps everyone here is OUT OF THE LOOP unlike where Frank is now and thus no one here has a leg to stand on when casting judgment.
So either I believe you guys and accept that Barney Frank now considers himself on par with pedophiles and people guilty of incest (and then make all sorts of exaggerated and overtly dramatic vows, condemnations and assertions to boot) or I can believe that Frank now knows what Obama is up to and sees Obama's game as worth defending.
This place, for some reason and especially when it has to do with gay issues is all too eager to grab onto every negative bit of info and run with it as an indictment of Obama. It's like the gay RedState.com at times. No benefit of the doubt, and no patience is afforded the man. No possibility that while you guys are seeing simple checkers moves, Obama is busy playing chess. To the OVERALL benefit of the gay community in the long term.
Here, it'a all "NOW NOW NOW!!! GIMME GIMME GIMME ... OR ELSE! I seem to recall the left was busy giving Obama a hard time during the campaign when it was thought he wasn't playing fast and dirty to the left's satisfaction because after all, we knew better, we knew how to win. We were all tit for tat and Obama was seeing a longer broader picture that proved to be better and smarter than what we saw, which was just the immediate. I'm getting a feeling of deja Vu.
Forty years after Stonewall it's entirely appropriate that our community has steadily raised the bar in terms of what it expects from politicians who want to receive our votes, our dollars, and our support. Twenty years ago, around the time of the 1987 march, we would have been ecstatic if Obama had just shown up to the march and spoken to the crowd, like Jesse Jackson (the only Democratic politician who thought we were worth talking to, I might add.) Ten years ago we would have been delighted over Obama's proclamation.
But this is 2009. We have made considerable political progress, and it's time to raise the bar again. My sense is that the community is getting tired of politicians who continue to use the civil unions, separate-but-equal dodge to oppose same-sex marriage. If you don't keep raising the bar, you aren't making progress.
Having said that, enough with the patronizing rant. Who are you to act as if you know the grand plan of things?
Howard Dean and the New York Times Editorial staff griped about the brief, too. Are you saying that they can't see the forest for the trees, either?
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, Obama was using gays as cannon fodder as a way to appear to be more moderate and that maybe YOU are the man who is playing checkers?
The last man to make a checkers speech was Richard Nixon and we all know how well THAT turned out.
I think all this vitriol helps him more than it hurts him. I just disagree that he's going to turn you into cannon fodder. As I said yesterday, i just think he wants to focus on the BIG stuff that will benefit ALL OF US, like say health care, before he focuses on gay issues which can be used as a wedge issue to distract moderates.
I had a friend who lost everything to the family of his spouse of many years, after his partner died, because of greed. He had no recourse.
I think we all know someone, at least tangentially, who was unfairly drummed out of the armed forces.
In a very visceral sense, these are our very lives at stake. Lack of benefits for our partners. Lack of protection for our families. The stigma that DADT brings to all gay Americans. The anti-gay violence that sentiment like the DOMA brief triggers. It does not get more personal than that.
I have no problem being patient, we gays have been patient all our lives.
But President Obama has shown us absolutely no respect, or recognition of our humanity.
As angry as I am over the DOMA brief, whose language was unnecessarily cruel and destructive, the most telling thing about the man is his refusal to lift DADT.
Think about this, Turkey is the only other NATO nation that excludes gays from serving openly. In the nations where gays have been integrated, the lie about the destruction of military cohesion has been exposed as a sham. Even the majority of Conservatives favor allowing gays to serve. And Obama has 59 or 60 Senate votes and a substantial majority in the House.
And yet, he STILL doesn't think the time is right to end DADT, or even put a stop to the discharges?
Something is seriously out of kilter, but one thing is for certain, courageous he is not.
It seems he has made hard shifts to the right in just about every area but stem cell research.
I am hoping he will do something soon to make me proud that I supported him so vigorously. But that day seems farther and farther away.
[But more important than personal adulation was something else Americans seemed willing to give their young president, something apparent in robust poll numbers and a recognition that things weren't going to improve overnight: The country was willing to be patient.]
All except the gay community, they should have added.
What fun.
You may want to ask Barney Frank why he did a complete 360. I'm sure it's not the ridiculous assertion made here that this has to do with some dinner. Geez.
Washington is all about deals. Frank was definitely promised something.
at all.
Are we back to that?
Every time someone comes out with an opposing opinion here they're either a homophobe or a closet Republican.
Really, it's getting tired.
Here's the problem.
I don't think anybody would get as riled up about somebody simply defending Obama on policy issues.
But, if those of us who have our own gripes, borne out of our own worldview, get dismissed as a collective group of whiners, it is not going to facilitate a response that will ever get to the level of a dialogue. There are better ways to go about the points you are trying to make.
Generalizing about our collective response is not the best way to do it.
If ever there was proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely, Frank is it.
I am so sick of career politicians. And career lgbt advocates who have lost touch with the everyday issues they once fought passionately for.
What some people won't do for access and political favors.
And interestingly enough, “hopenchange” in this situation looks an awful lot like the policies of the Bush administration. Oh, the irony of it all!
I think I know where I would like to put my money.
It's not on Barney.
Don’t rush ‘don’t ask’:
Obama did say yesterday that he considers DOMA "discriminatory". To go from that to unconstitutional is not so great a leap.
If Frank cannot "deliver" gay votes and dollars, then he loses his seat at the insiders table.
We've got better things to worry about than the "access" of beltway insiders.
I hope everyone will boycott the DNC-LGBT fundraiser next week.
Frank didn't read the $787 billion "stimulus" bill before he voted on it either. Why would you think he would read anything else before commenting on it?
===========================================
That's a good point though I expect my representatives to read these bills before they comment. This is what happened to us when the Patriot Act was voted into law. No one actually read the damned thing, and not we're stuck with it.