DISQUS

Seething Mom · 5 months ago

It isn't just gay people who are pissed. I am straight, married for 27 years, and pissed as hell. As the mom of a gay son, this is my fight too.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Thank you! Your son is a lucky guy and our whole community very much appreciates your understanding and support.

Mark in Colorado · 5 months ago

Thank you Mom,
This gay son (of 45yrs.) appreciates your love and support.
I still find it amazing how moms will protect their young no matter what.

FunMe · 5 months ago

Oh my goodness! What a BEAUTIFUL letter you wrote to President Obama.

I hope if it's OK if I share with others.

THANK YOU for your love to the human race.
:-)

publicsteele · 5 months ago

I guess I'm not as upset about this as most. Here are the major issues, as I see it, in context of their politics:

1. Marriage: We know that Obama's position is a states' rights one and that is probably the best way to go because it will be the inequity between states that will open the door for a national policy in our favor.

2. DOMA: We know that the Massachusetts case to overturn DOMA is on the horizon. We don't know the result but it makes sense to let the legal challenge play itself out before using legislative capital to write a new law. Chances of winning in the courts look pretty good from an equal protection standpoint. We have the constitution on our side and must look to all three branches of government for solutions, not just the executive, which is somewhat impotent when it comes to overturning an action of the legislature. A successful court challenge will prove more durable than overturning the law in the legislature because it will strike at the constitutional foundation of the policy. It would be nearly impossible to re-institute a repealed DOMA once the Supreme Court rules in our favor. If that process fails, it will be time to write a new law but not before.

3. DADT: The solution to overturning this must come from within the military - prodded by the president, otherwise Democrats will be portrayed as socially engineering the armed forces at a time of war. I don't agree with that point of view, but that's what the opposition will do and they will march out all of their crusty old generals to make their point and they will succeed. Repealing DADT will not have a significant impact on unit cohesion but the fight over it could, with military leaders being pulled out of the Pentagon to choose sides in a political issue. This can trickle through the ranks in a very ugly way. There will be a time to force the issue if there is no movement but I think it is a little unrealistic to demand it be done within months of the President taking office, especially knowing that Clinton blew his first year in office crafting a policy that no one is happy with (I also believe Clinton's handling of this issue started the witch hunt to remove him from office). The president pledged to reverse the policy but he never promised when. In political terms, this issue is just now gaining traction with high-profile soldiers like Dan Choi and the Knights Out org speaking out in an effective way. There is a valid argument in implementing a stop-loss policy that would support gay and lesbian soldiers, but again, unless that is requested by the Joint Chiefs the president will get slammed. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief but there are unwritten rules of deference to military expertise in personnel matters and strategy that keep the relationship strong between career military and the revolving door of the Presidency.

We have the option of demanding immediate political action from Obama or we have the option of letting all of these issues percolate through each appropriate branch of government in a way that will lead to more durable solutions. We have political momentum on our side and it is building.

Klad InVermont · 5 months ago

This growing kerfuffle in the LGBT community is a bit perplexing & it seems that some in the alternate (blogsphere) media have been fanning things for whatever reasons, much like the right-corporate media fanned the flames of warmongering etc over the past 8 yrs.

Did anyone out there really believe that within the first 4 months of Obama's presidency that all the evil done by Bush would be erased? Or that civil rights would be extended to us all? Obviously there are many problems of inequality that we face, such as DADT & DOMA, but unless I've missed something by June 26th the Justice Dept will have to decide whether or not to defend DOMA. In light of that, shouldn't we wait to see what happens on the 26th & then take it from there?
This "torch-wielding rhetoric"or "storming the Bastille" talk is at best silly & at worst very FoxNewsSpeak. And that is scary! I doubt the LBGT community appreciates being played like a FoxWatcher.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

Bravo.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Neville, is that you?

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

you're missing the point. when obama speaks about LGBT civil rights lately, he hems and haws and brings up 1993 talking points (hospital visitation). when the california court slaps us down in the worst way, he has no comment. you're missing the point if you think that we are expecting miracles. what we are expecting is a re-emergence of the guy who campaigned against McCain/Palin.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yes, it's that we're seeing movement BACKWARDS from Obama, not forwards. Why is it some people are unable to admit that?

It's like some grand delusion where if we just wish hard enough, and ignore all the signs that have been presented to us, we'll get what we want.

It's seriously disturbing.

millineryman · 5 months ago

Well said.

FunMe · 5 months ago

What we expect was movements FORWARD.

What I did not expect was a BACKING AWAY from GLBT concerns.

Waiting around is NOT going to help us.

We have to cease the moment. NOw

fredndallas · 5 months ago

It is terribly unfair to blame the messenger in this case.

For example, I would bet that Americablog has been taken aback at the tone and level of passion being expressed by its readers about President Obama's odd and contradictory behavior.

They are reporting on the most important issue to this community and that is their reason for being.

Indigo · 5 months ago

HRC? Isn't that the Log Cabin auxiliary for making nice? No wonder Obama isn't getting the message.When it's time to talk about how gay "leaders" have failed the community, HRC is at the top of the list.

American · 5 months ago

I did not vote for Obama because once I found out he was going to a church that preached racism I couldn't vote for him regardless of his stand on anything.
I have found in my life experience that blacks have been the most openly homophobic to me. I went to a military college as a civilian when I was in my early 20's and I had to give a speech on any controversial topic I chose so I chose gays serving in the military. I was expecting to get some backlash as I gave the presentation but I wasn't expecting the nastiness to come from mostly black students.
Since that experience I've noticed that unlike many other minorities blacks are mostly concerned with their own struggle in the equal rights movement. They don't see homosexuals as being discriminated against because they think it's a "choice" and I feel they need to envision another minority beneath them and to give them more of a feeling of urgency regarding how they are treated.
I don't see any difference in what group is being mistreated and that all minorities should look out for each other and come together. I truely could care less what someone's skin color is and I judge them on their actions as individuals but I cannot put on blinders and pretend that I have not experienced hypocrisy from the black community in regards to equal rights for all.
I hope that the gay community realizes that Obama doesn't care about gay rights and he sees gay people as being repugnant and beneath him because it's after all a "choice".
This country needs to move beyond liberal vs conservative and the two party system that uses wedge issues to keep power and instead elect individuals based on their accomplishments and not their views on what adults choose to do with other adults or what someone's physical characteristics are. We are all human beings and are flawed but equal and deserve dignity and compassion.
I hope that Obama is a successful president but I do not hope that he is successful in continuing policies that discriminate against citizens liberty and pursuit of happiness and equality.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

I've run into this a lot.. the total revulsion at being lumped into the same civil rights fightin' group as the icky gays.

We're apparently riding the coat tails of blacks, and I've been told repeatedly to "get your own movement".. this is being said, of course, by black people too young to have ever experienced the first civil rights movement in the 60's.

I understand that said movement is a major badge of pride for black people, as it rightly should be... but it amazes me how fast that veneer of diplomacy falls when it's suggested that the civil rights fight never ended, it's a big umbrella that many groups still battle under today.

It's just a "ew, gays, we don't want anything to do with them, how dare they usurp OUR movement" attitude.

Really disheartening, yet very prevalent.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

it's garden-variety bigotry. i don't like to put that fine a point on it.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

I share the observation and it is a critical one.

What a shame that Barack Obama is apparently either so power greedy that he can't strategize around this OR is so emotionally immature that he can't see through his own elitist prejudice.

Our best chance is to call him on it and strongly.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

His church that preached "racism" of course also preached acceptance of LGBT rights.

Funny how that got lost in the argument. Black = homophobic, how many times have I heard that?

metricpenny · 5 months ago

John,

I’ve been reading your posts lately about Obama’s lack of action on his campaign promises related to LGBT civil rights issues and I feel your pain.

It wasn’t until this post that I realized when I had witnessed this sort of anger and frustration in the past. It was in the early 60’s when my parents, black Americans who had migrated to the Southside of Chicago from Birmingham in the early 50’s, would rail against Jim Crow and the lack of enforcement of the civil rights of their family members back home, and ask why the president wasn’t putting a stop to it.

We now know that it wasn’t politically expedient for the president to do so until all Americans SAW the pain of those black Americans.

As a heterosexual supporter of full civil rights for LGBT Americans I am aware of the struggles you all face. I read your, Pam’s and Sully’s blogs, to mention a few, daily. However, the majority of Americans don’t.

After reading this post I’m wondering if LGBT Americans need one leader and a plan on how to SHOW Americans how you’re being adversely affected. It wasn’t until Dr. King’s ”appointment” as the leader of the black Americans’ civil rights movement; and, the broadcasts of sit-ins, arrests, boycotts, marches, bombings and attacks by law enforcement using dogs and fire hoses, that the president did what was required.

I think “appointing” an even-tempered, eloquent, knowledgeable and charismatic front-person in conjunction with using current technology to get the message to Americans should be the priority for this fight. Reality shows are all rage. Placement of enough real world video of the daily struggles of LGBT Americans on YouTube could lead to buzz that grabs the attention of news programmers. Just a surface thought. I’m no strategist.

I guess I said all that to say, you can SHOW Americans better than you can TELL them.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

A lot of attention is being paid to Obama's remarks about his visit to Buchenwald concentration camp where so many Jews died. I'm glad he made the trip. But I don't see any mention of the hundreds of thousands of gays who died in the Nazi camps. Nor the fact that many of the survivors who were "liberated" by the US Army were subsequently sent on to prison because they were gay.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

What an EXCELLENT point! And truly an egregious omission. Yet another example of this President's personal emotional problem with gay people.

Think about it: from every other single aspect of what is known about Barack Obama's intellectual and philosophical make up. . .

it would be absolutely compelling to include mention of the horrible slaughter of gay people by the Nazis.

And yet not a word.

WHAT is this man's problem? (Because it is obvious, obvious, obvious that he has one.)

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

In all fairness, VERY few people mention us when the holocaust comes up. Even many gay people don't mention us when the holocaust comes up.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Ah, but the point stands, and perhaps is made stronger.

President Obama prides himself as a world leader, as someone who illuminates history in current context. Using the "bully pulpit" to truly make a difference, not just in practical matters, but in a moral way.

Educating about the Nazi treatment of gay victims would have been a PERFECT way to fulfill that progressive role and it would not cost him one dime of political capital. Just an inclusion mention would have been quite meaningful.

He could not bring himself to do it.

Very telling.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

I'm just saying that the ignorance of our treatment during the holocaust goes much farther than Obama and we shouldn't be laying the blame for it at his feet.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

What?

He didn't point out the mistreatment by the Nazis of Gypsies either. What's the point?

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

Who died and elected HRC as "our" representatives? Why is it that HRC is cutting deals with the Obama administration, to begin with? When and how did HRC become "the spokesmen" for our cause?
IMHO, HRC is more concerned with "connections" than "connecting".
There should be no more waiting and waiting for our Rights of Equality. Barry seems to be all for equality, so long as we are not quite as equal as everyone else.
Not one thin dime, and no let up until Barry does what he said he would do and be the leader that he promised to be.
Screw waiting.

Jophus · 5 months ago

If I beg, will you please stop calling him Barry?

met00 · 5 months ago

As much as I loathed the Bush White House, it knew how to accomplish things. Sure they were things that I didn't like, but they got them done.

How?

Divide and beat the crap out of your opponent by splitting their voice.

Does the Obama White House have any idea how to accomplish this goal? Not from what I have seen.

How would I change it.

1) Drop DADT
2) Push through Health Care single payer
3) Invest in green programs
4) Invest in education
5) Start a jobs program
6) Close GITMO
7) Start the strategic withdrawal from Iraq
8) Create a USA Credit Card to compete with the banks
9) Start offering direct refi through Fanny and Freddie
10) Close all offshore drilling leases that have not been exercised
11) Release the Bush era changes to former presidential records
12) Have the justice department open investigations into the AG Firings

And that is just for Monday morning.

Then watch the heads explode on Faux.

They won't know what to go after first. Like the divide and beat the crap out of 'em strategy Rove orchestrated so well from the West Wing, this will piss off so many on the right that they won't be able to get their act together and shoot straight. They will create circular firing squads and in the end will be noise, not chatter. There will be no one story that can gravitate since so many different competing stories will be fighting for their five minutes of pissed off TV.

That is the lesson of Bush-Rove. Piss off so many all at once that the message can't be formed and get out. Piss 'em all off. Piss 'em all off at once.

And that is what upsets me about this administration. They haven't learned how to win on almost everything. They are still stuck on fighting each battle sequentially. That's BS. Yse Cheney's shotgun, shoot them all in the face, and let the right wing echo chamber freak out and try to create a single unifying message while all the players are screaming about different things.

That's how you get change.

Change you can believe in.

postdamnit · 5 months ago

I think that Obama suffers from the Rodney King syndrome which is:
" Can't we all just get along". A fine sentiment but not logical in DC.

He wants to be all things to everyone but is becoming increasingly nothing to most.
.

LunaStick · 5 months ago

This news might bring you some cheer.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/05/mchugh-dadt...

Unfortunately it is a sloooow process.

Gary SF · 5 months ago

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

It's pretty clear that we are being thrown under the bus so maybe we can become bus mechanics.

Seriously, HRC is wrong about this.

Not One Nickel for Obama, the Democrats and now HRC.

http://www.notonenickel.blogspot.com/

FFups · 5 months ago

This is somewhat on the aside, but I’ve noticed an interesting shift in media coverage. Hardball’s Chris Matthews had a segment on the Obama’s lack of movement on LGBT issues between HRC’s Solmonese and Lorri Jean’ LA LGBT center.
The two sides: a) we want change (Solmonese) b) we want change faster (Lorri Jean).
It used to be the case that the two viewpoints on gay issues were represented by (1) a pro-gay representative and (2) some right wing nutcase, like Mrs. Perkins or Gallagher.
I think the change regarding the two sides is an achievement and probably wouldn’t have occurred even 1 year ago. Times change, and so does news coverage.

Blueflash · 5 months ago

I saw that too. I hope you're right, though since the election of Obama chameleon-like Matthews has really been in his liberal mode and on a personal level he's always seemed to genuinely like gay people. But it definitely always has been de rigueur with the MSM always to have some odious a-hole like Perkins on in the name of "balance".

offspring · 5 months ago

HRC? the HRC doesnt talk for me at all, I am from oklahoma let me do a little story for you about the brave HRC, years ago there was a hearing in the okc, churchs bused in kids and member to fill up the seats so that no gay person could even get in, the hrc and gay people giving their stories, I believe this was for hate crime law, where having to stand outside the damn door, during several times during the statements by the gay people, the world faggot came out several times a few times from the childeren yes the childeren the room had a laugh, a man was telling his story and was almost in tears about an attack and treatment of him, a small kid egged on probally by his parents starts laughing and yells fag the people beside him laugh, so instead of stay and help fight and help us HRC packed its bags and ran with their tales between their legs, which is made funnier due to the fact i got in the mail shortly after a mailing asking for money for them, and bragging about how tough they are and how they are here for us, I have no respect for them.

taodon · 5 months ago

If gays are no longer oppressed, HRC will be out of jobs. Better to delay and drag feet as long as possible so they can continue to suck on our financial teat claiming "progress." The only thing HRC is good at is throwing parties for themselves.

pacnwjay · 5 months ago

BINGO! No lobbyist in DC has the motivation to actually win! As soon as they do, the money stream dries up.

HRC is in the business of selling their access to rich homos. "Join our Federal Club, and meet a Sen, VP or First Lady!!!" They DO NOT have our best interests at heart.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

You are SO right. And not just with the HRC. In 40+ years of fighting for gay equality I have seen this true of "gay leaders" ad infinitum. The incentive is all wrong.

Not until a movement has a tremendously sincere, highly spiritually (from the heart, I mean) motivated person of high character as a strong leader does it accomplish objectives.

I don't think we are going to find another one after Harvey Milk. I pray I'm wrong.

If we don't, then it is up to us to somehow bring effective action. I damn sure don't think it will ever happen as a result of HRC's "social hour" approach.

Chris · 5 months ago

Based on what? This is what infuriates me about this site sometimes. You state plainly that there is an appearance that Obama is going to "sister souljah" the gay community. However, there is little to no evidence that is occurring. Rather, some of your own posts have been bringing up things that is nothing.

This is the true Clinton legacy on the gay community, it's not the laws that he was forced to put in place by republicans, it's the lack of trust and overall belief that one is disingenuous when all one has to do is look at the promises he's made so far, and if you look on politifact, a VERY high portion of them have already been made. In fact, I think suffice to say, Obama may be the first President in my lifetime who's been on track to complete most if not all of his campaign promises. This paranoia and fear in the gay community has got to stop. It's going to rip it from the inside out.

That said, there should be pressure placed on the Obama administration, in the same way Hispanics are pressuring the Obama administration for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, but for the most part, the majority of the Hispanic Community is happy with the administration, even though absent the Supreme Court pick, not much has been done for them.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

A New York State Assemblyman once said to me "Sometimes, I wonder if taking a political stand is worth it when the people you're standing up for already think you've sold them out"

The Dude · 5 months ago

Don't you think it is more likely a case that the Obama folks see the writing on the wall that the States (the incubators of democracy) are doing all the hard work and that the Obama admin can sit it out, save their clout for other big fights, and say "It isn't us: it's the States"?

Now don't get me wrong: I'm mad as hell that a lot of promises have gotten really watered down (where is Single Payer Healthcare? Is it even being discussed), and although I'm not gay, I too am mad as hell about "gay marriage," DADT, etc., but I think Obama knows the tide has turned and these things are changing without him and he can save his political 'capital' (which is an outdated concept since a good portion of the Republicans dont believe in any kind of compromise and just hate Democrats... I'm looking at you Inhofe and you DeMint).

Just a thought.

PeteWa · 5 months ago

Can't argue with much of this post, the ongoing tone-deaf response from the WH has been rather unsettling.
I also never expected anything substantive to happen the first six months, first year, etc. but I did expect to at least have the language there (or as you have mentioned many times in the past, an education campaign needs to be implemented to get the public on your side, or at the very least to understand your point) but that has not happened either.

Well, at least you are seeing Rahm as the slithering snake he is, rather than the hero many tried to make him out to be (after he knifed Dean in the back).
Street fighter?
Hardly.

Isadore · 5 months ago

Rahm the slithering snake. Couldn't' have characterized him better.

markf217 · 5 months ago

I am a very pissed off gay man. DADT hurts our national security and should have been repealed right away as promised. I want to see massive change and justice and I want it now (actually, yesterday). That said, I am still happy being a little over four months into an Obama administration (versus a McCain-Palin nightmare administration scenario). I am not completely happy with our Democratic Congress right now. But I still will take these flawed and limited congressional progressives over GOP majorities in both houses of Congress. And I am happy that President Obama (and not President McCain) is the person appointing the next Supreme Court justice. Yes, let's raise hell and keep pushing. This blog is significant and popular. I have a feeling that folks in the White House read Americablog, Daily Kos, Huffington... I am glad you keep raising these issues here. I reject a Fabian Society approach to the liberties granted by the U.S. Constitution being applied "gradually" to non-hetero Americans. But I really like waking up in the morning with President Barack Obama in the White House and George W. Bush somewhere in Texas, powerless, stupid as ever, walking his dog and trimming brush. I still give President Obama a B+ for his job performance so far.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

I would agree. You can beat the crap out of someone and still love them. Well, in politics. Not in real life :-)

markf217 · 5 months ago

Well, in our household we actually enjoy some milder forms of "tough love" (handcuffs, etc.). A little bondage never hurt anyone. I really like President Obama a great deal and I still plan on doing whatever I can to give him total hell on equality issues.

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

TMI!!! So, where I can meet y'all? J/K!!

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

I've personally worked with HRC in Washington, DC and they do a great job lobbying. My only fear is there are some in the organization (at the top) who seem to be too much into "access" and "schmoozing" than actually getting civil rights accomplished. NOT ALL, but there were some, I feel, that were more about being part of the "cool kids" than actually raising HELL and ensuring we get our civil rights. This is the case with MOST organizations and our national political leaders, in general, though, isn't it? Its that whole Beltway conundrum... you give your money to them because they do, indeed, have access but WHAT is their real priotity? Securing our rights or ensuring we don't get too much too fast or they might not be "needed" anymore?

libertydan · 5 months ago

I doubt Obama will help you, his stances are based on politics not principle, like most in Washington. Good luck anyways.

AnotherGayInSFO · 5 months ago

Congress hasn't sent anything to the President for signature yet. Unfortunately, there is no filibuster-proof Senate therefore Senate leaders are cautious with respect to Hate Crimes Legislation. When the House passed their version of the legislation, President Obama issued a notice urging fast Senate turnaround and to get the bill on his desk for his signature. Obama has said time and again, he will sign an inclusive ENDA if Congress gets that legislation on his desk.

I for one am glad that the bill won't be rushed through the Senate without the votes, because the last thing we want or need is a defeat right out of the starting gate. A loss means the legislation will be that much more difficult to pass in the future and the other legislative efforts will look even less promising.

Political expediency is never a wise choice or strategy. For some to advocate Executive Orders, that's the least effective in the long run. He will alientate and create strained relationships with Democrats and Republicans alike. Talk about gridlock and there are no assurances that voters in 2012 will see a Congress impeding progress or an ineffective President.

And, Executive Orders give Congress a free pass to not act, especially Blue Dog Democrats and those coming up for election. That would be the worse outcome. Because we weren't patient enough to let Congress pass legislation or to wait until there is a filibuster-proof Senate, we get an Executive Order which could be reversed yet again upon a new President.

And, as this rate with some of the comments I've read and the mistruths or inaccuracies being spread around, it will resonate and you pat yourselves on the back as we welcome the Republicans back to our nation's Capital.

Blueflash · 5 months ago

It seems to me we'll probably know where we really stand with Obama on the 28th of this month, the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion. If he lets that pass - the seminal event in gay American history - without comment we're in trouble.

timncguy · 5 months ago

I certainly never expected ALL of Obama's promises to be kept in the first 4 months of his presidency. But, I did expect SOMETHING to be visible by now. And, to date (other than the Pride proclamation) we have gotten nothing positive from Obama.

But, we have gotten several negatives.

1. In order to re-emphasize his commitment to LGBT equality, Obama had the White House web iste language on LGBT equality watered down.

2. Once Obama determined that the UN Resolution on gay issues was totally unenforceable, he signed on to it.

3. To acknowledge the marriage equality victory in Iowa, Obama made it the butt of a joke at the Annual Correspondants dinner

4. To acknowledge the pain of our loss in CA, Obama made the protestors outside his CA fundraiser the butt of another joke.

When Obama inadvertantly made a joking comment about Special Olympics he was for to apologize for damage control. But, when he INTENTIONALLY jokes about LGBT equality, there is no apology.

When the president chooses to belittle LGBT equality in the ways he has done since taking office while doing nothing positive, it gives everyone else license to do the same. There is no excuse for this behavior.

By now, Obama should have signed an executive stop loss order ending DADT and used his "bully pulpit" to tell congress to get going on repealing DADT. There is no reason for not doing this. Repeal of DADT has 70% approval. There is no political risk in it at all. It is certainly every bit as popular as the order he signed for embryonic stem cell research.

bayhuntr · 5 months ago

Time will tell, but in the short term, for now it's silly to say stuff like "I did expect SOMETHING to be visible by now. And, to date (other than the Pride proclamation) we have gotten nothing positive from Obama"

Remember this?

In January, Sandy Tsao, an army officer based out of St. Louis, MO, told her superiors that she is gay — a violation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. Tsao then wrote to President Obama, urging him to change the DADT policy: “I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice.” On May 5, Tsao received a handwritten letter from Obama with a pledge to repeal DADT at some point.
In the letter, Obama wrote that he is “committed to changing our current policy” but that “it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action).” Yesterday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who has sponsored legislation repealing DADT, discussed the issue with Rachel Maddow, saying, “I’d like to see us move it by this summer, and I think we can.” (http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/...)

There is a lot going on in the country right now and this a big issue for us, but I don't expect someone looking for work to agree.

Õ¿Õ · 5 months ago

We have to make noise, regardless.

timncguy · 5 months ago

I do remember that. And, Obama's assertion that congressional action is required is flat out wrong. We all know by now that Obama could issue an executive stop loss order to suspend the DADT firings.

By the way, is Sandy Tsao still in the military? Or, did Obama's inaction lead to her dismissal already?

By the way, a new Gallup poll has been reported on repeal of DADT. 69% of the country is in favor of repeal. REpeal is favored by EVERY grouping within the poll results including republicans, conservative and regular church goers. There is no downside to taking action NOW through executive order and telling congress to get on the ball.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

He can't and he shouldn't. All Obama can do is issue an executive order to "review the policy" and temporarily stop discharges. Speaking as someone who has lived among the military, that's the worst thing to do. A "review" of the policy would, IMO, lead to a conclusion that the negative effects of having the policy are less than the negative effects of dumping it.

Also, it means Congress won't pass legislation permanently banning it because the onus is off of them.

Obama is right not to issue an executive order...it won't stop the policy permanently and could very possibly backfire.

timncguy · 5 months ago

can't is not quite true. Obama has the legal authority given to him by congress to issue an executive stop loss order. It is only temporary in that Obama or a future president could issue another order starting the enforcement back up.

In ALL the articles I have read about this authority Obama has, NONE have ever mentioned any theory that this would trigger a "review".

Besides, reviews have been done already and concluded no detrimental effect to lifting the ban.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

These articles left out that important fact. There would be a study on the effectiveness of the policy...and there is no way we're getting legislation from Congress overturning DADT if we do it by temporary executive orders.

I'm not interested in temporary fixes, I'm interested in permanent ones. An executive order would be a cop out IMO.

Mike_in_the_Tundra · 5 months ago

I'm not sure how much good my actions are doing, but they do make me feel better. Yesterday, I received a nice little letter from the DNC. It included a nice photo of Obama. It also had a sheet for writing what my contribution would me. There was also a place for me to write suggestions for Obama. I made no contribution, but I did write that I would make no more contributions as long as DADT exists. To prove that I was just not being cheap, I said that I would make a contribution to my representative, Keith Ellison. He watches out for the LGBT community.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

It was the gay community of my parents' generation that almost burned down New York and San Francisco.

markf217 · 5 months ago

John, I do disagree with you on one point. There are gay communities, many of them. Some of them very different from each other. There is no, one, monolothic gay community. I respect HRC, give them money. But they don't always speak on my behalf and I don't agree with them 100%.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Fair enough.

nicho · 5 months ago

I'm with you on this one, John. Nobody in the community -- at least not one who knows how the system works -- expected Obama to wave some magic wand and make it all better. After all, Clinton screwed up horribly by miscalculating on gays in the military.

The military is in the grasp of an evangelical cult -- and overturning DADT will be hard. Repealing DOMA will be difficult, at best.

However, there are things that Obama can do that would be at least symbolic to the community -- something to show some solidarity or that he cares. And, that's where he's failing.

His silence in the wake of the PropH8 ruling was deafening. We know he can't overturn it. And, we don't expect him to attack the CA Supreme Court. But couldn't he have even issued a statement acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of people who supported him, worked for him, and pinned their hopes on him (at his request) were in pain? We got nothing -- except a snide little joke at our expense at his posh dinner in Beverly Hills.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. He (or his handlers) are counting votes. They know they will gain more votes from playing to the homophobes than they will lose by shitting on the GLBT community. It's just math. They figure the gays have nowhere else to go. After all, we're not going to vote for Palin/Huckabee/Romney or even take the chance that they will win. So, Obama & Co. feels safe in dissing us, while cozying up to homophobes. They're playing both ends against the middle.

He'd just better hope there's no Democratic primary battle in 2012. That could be interesting. Never count the Clinton machine out. Bill wants to be back in the White House so bad, he can taste it.

DavidinPS · 5 months ago

You are so right Nicho. The military is in the sway of evangelical christians. I had heard of this--especially at the AF Academy-but never gave it much worry. But last night I had dinner with a gay ex-military man and he said the Evangelical presence in the forces are enormous, very powerful and growing. Anyone else think this is really alarming?

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

the thought that obama as commander in chief could be scared of evangelical marine sergeants is beyond dismaying.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

i still need to be convinced that obama's people are counting the right votes. his disapproval rate is stuck at about 25 -30%. those are basically the supporters of Rick Warren and Donnie McClurkin. so how is that vote counting working out? By cozying up to Warren et al. he alienated the significant minority of evangelicals who disapprove of the anti-science, anti-environment, anti-human-rights majority among them. do you think he has added many evangelicals to his base? suppose he had gone to the middle east and, instead of reaching out to muslims, reached out to Al Qaeda. i see his vote counting in that light.

nicho · 5 months ago

I think there's a base of talibangelicals he won't penetrate, but he's also playing to the black community. I was talking to a black friend yesterday and she was dismayed at the amount of homophobia in the black community. She said of members of her own family, "I love them dearly, but they are just way out there when it comes to gays and lesbians. They don't even make any sense."

She also pointed out that during slavery and then segregation, the churches were the only things white people would let black people have. So, they keep pretty close to their churches and their ministers.

Just look at the array of black ministers who fulminated against DC's acceptance of same-sex marriages from other areas. If the black ministers decide to turn against Obama, a lot of black people will have a tough choice to make in 2012.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

GIANT BINGO.

President Obama surely feels that he must maintain his overwhelming support from the black voting block.

The majority of black ministers have used gay bashing as a cash cow for decades and are not about to give it up.

To his credit, Obama has made minor efforts to educate and induce them out of this exploitation. I suspect to no avail. Perhaps he even got an enormous push back.

Having been a civil rights activist from the beginning of the movement, I was terribly concerned about the black churches impact on the Prop 8 vote and of course my concerns proved valid.

Failing judicial or federal action, GLBT equality is likely decades away in areas of this country with significant black votes.

It is an outrage and it starts and ends with black preachers.

FunMe · 5 months ago

I'm still hurt about that snide comment. I was there with the large GLBT group (red sign) in front of the Beverly Hills hotels. We even chanted "don't ignore us" to no avail.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GY69sDkG2Us/Sh6q3wh7u...

Well he ignored us and made fun of us!


But let me quote the apologists: "Oh but it's only been 100 days! Or he couldn't see the gay protesters. There were others."

Yeah right. We were very visible!

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

Cause the Clinton machine is going to help the gays?

mike · 5 months ago

' I think a lot of that criticism has been unfair - it's awfully difficult to get anything done when Republicans control the Congress (and the White House) "

John-
Democrats have controled the Congress since 2007

DCKit · 5 months ago

I had always wondered if Rahm was Iago to Obama's Othello. I also understand that the president has a lot going on, and am willing to wait a bit, but jeesh, they have been stunningly ham - handed dealing with all gay issues from DOMA to DADT. If it is him, what could Rahm's problem be with teh gays?

Dave · 5 months ago

HRC is, was and will be a huge Farce. They endorsed John Sweeney over Kirsten Gillibrand because they wanted to "BALANCE" their endorsement. They don't fight for "Us" just for our "Dollars". Plain and Simple.

Obama will come through for us. We just need patience.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

What are you basing that assertion on, exactly. What has he done so far? What is his record on LGBT issues? Why now the hedging, the silence, and the backtracking? Why the cleansing of promises from the presidential website?

Answer me that, and then explain your rather baseless opinion on why he'll come through for us.

The data does not support your conclusion.

Dave · 5 months ago

Wait and see.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Don't wait and see, PUSH and see. FDR once said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

FunMe · 5 months ago

Exactly! GREAT quote I have been using it a lot, too.

Meanwhile, "wait and see". Yeah, tell that to Rosa Parks!

Isadore · 5 months ago

What a strange world we live in.

It's 2009 and we're arguing about Civil Rights.

Our President is a coward on this issue, and those around him snakes. And why?

Because we don't want to piss off a handful of religious fruitcakes? Ignorance and prejudice know no bounds, and Obama will declare his spinelessness to pick up a few votes.

Whatever Obama, uh, may have, uh, he does not, uh, have courage.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

I just don't get the daily molotov cocktails tossed Mr. Obama's way every day in this blog space...
To me, HRC is just another political group clogging my email inbox like so many others but, from your post, they might be taking a more rational political approach with a President who while he might not sing in our choir, defends the rights of our church and its property.
The California model, with its assortment of celebrities and alleged leaders, has come to mean an echo chamber of silly, over-the-top hyberbole and buzzwords leading to unintended reversals...It is not a model anyone should emulate.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

I think "molotov cocktails" is a little over-the-top myself. Asking people to "just wait" for the civil rights is a very serious issue. If we remain silent then we get what we deserve... nothing.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

And we are a blog that has a special focus on gay rights, in addition to our regular focus on US politics across the board. There is a growing firestorm in the gay community, and our coverage reflects that fact.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

A "growing firestorm" might only bring us blackened debris...

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Cleansing fires are often necessary to remove useless waste and reinvigorate the soil.

Jophus · 5 months ago

Witty comeback.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Apparently there shouldn't BE a firestorm.. we should be beholden to the great plan of Obama, as mercurial and inconsistent as it appears.

Trust in the politician, and they shall deliver all.

Huzzah!

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

Sometimes, however, this firestorm seems to resonate only within a few miles of the Beltway.....honestly, most of us out here don't feel this way toward Obama.

Some of the blame resides with our own goddamn community. In my circles, my friends seem more interested in their damn HDTVs and partying than getting off their asses to DO anything about our situation.

I am very politically involved, mind you, and most people don't have the stomach for that, but I do think we need to get the message to our community that they are NOT speaking out enough. Not writing their reps enough, not DEMANDING enough from Obama.

I can't just be those who pay attention circling around, it needs to be THE PEOPLE.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

If there's a growing firestorm, it isn't occuring among my gay friends.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

Who is urging silence???
Being good citizens, good sons, good friends and responsible people to boot...our example...is what brought us to the acceptance we enjoy today, not silly anger and namecalling.
How would you describe the daily Ablog attacks on Mr. Obama and how does alienating this president advance our cause?

Isadore · 5 months ago

Citi - I don't see calling Obama a coward on this particular issue as "alienating" Obama - just the facts, plain and simple.

Let's put it this way. Obama is and will be a mediocre president - of course a lot better then Bush or McCain. But Obama is not a man of conviction, courage and principle - otherwise he would speak up, clearly, and distinctively. Hesitation is a sign, uh, of weakness and fear. Obama is NOT a great leader, hardly. He could be I suppose - but the signs just aren't there.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

so.. much.. projection... all over his face.. cue porn music..

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

I don't think we are alienating Obama by letting him know we expect change.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

I don't get your constant poo-pooing of the issues, and this misplaced "trust" you seem to have with certain celebrity politicians given their sad track record regarding the issues discussed on here.

It seems rather naive.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

More projecting from the aptly named gridlock...

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yes, clearly I'm projecting. Everybody else who noticed must be projecting too. Amazing how we're all projecting the same thing. The planets must be alignment. It's the great projection conjunction.

There, that heaps just enough scorn on such a silly suggestion.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

There are those who perpetuate every form of intolerance -- racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and more -- hatred that degrades its victims and diminishes us all. In this century, we've seen genocide. We've seen mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground; children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war. This places teaches us that we must be ever vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem and commit ourselves to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Being intolerant of willful lack of action on civil rights is never a negative.

It's like being intolerant of bigotry. It's impossible to be a negative.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

a major reason for Prop 8 was ... wait for it .. .obama's implicit and perceived support (cf. saddleback interview). as far as anyone can tell, he still supports it. stop focusing on court reversals. this never needed to happen in the first place.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

That's a lie...Obama made it very clear he opposed Proposition 8.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

he may have been officially against Prop 8, but what i said was the truth. large numbers of people who voted for prop 8 were aware that he is against gay marriage and that he sees his opposition as a religions cause.

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

and whose fault was that? The Pro-Prop 8 organizations who misrepresented the President's position on it and the anti-Prop 8 "organizations" that didn't effectively counter that argument with...you know...the truth.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

the point is that it's a lot easier for obama to stop using religion to justify bigotry than for a small minority to defend itself after the fact.

Tom in Lazybrook · 5 months ago

I've got an idea. Who are the committee chairs in the House and Senate through which ENDA and DADT repeal must pass (we already know about Sen. Melendez).

How about a primary challenge to Nancy Pelosi on the issue of inaction/incompetence on Gay rights issues? Any other committee chairs can we cause headaches for?

LarryR · 5 months ago

Gee, since when is the HRC the final say of all things gay?

JCinDEN · 5 months ago

New chant for pride: "NO EXCUSES, NO DELAYS! OBAMA/HRC IIs HURTING GAYS."

Doug in Mount Vernon · 5 months ago

This totally reminds me of marching in the March on Washington for GLBT Rights of 1993, in the North Carolina contingent (I was going to Duke), and hearing the people all around us yelling at the end of the march,

"We're tired! We're bitchy! We want our rights NOW!"

Yep, that still about sums it up. It is maddening that these political F's don't understand just HOW pissed off the LGBT community is, and how hungry we ARE for equality.

Now, to be fair and honest, if some lazy goddamn queens would put down the poppers and WORK THEIR ASSES off on political ACTION for, oh I dunno, longer than a few days (read--3-4 years), I guarantee you that we would win them.

Wake up, gay Americans. Get your asses off your duffs, join your local and state equality organizations, lobby your federal reps, and write g-d Obama! You must ACT to achieve.

Let's do this.

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

Yeah! That'll solve it! Just get all bitchy and throw a temper-tantrum!

Look fellow homos, we need to get OFF OUR LAZY ASSES AND BECOME ACTIVISTS!

95% of my friends couldn't be friggin bothered to get involved in such a small way as even writing their legislator, make an appointment to lobby one, making a "GAY MONEY" contribution, or God forbid, getting off their asses and MARCHING for our rights!

I haven't seen our community stand up and demand our rights forcefully enough lately, in my opinion. We just expect it to happen? Right......there's a bathhouse in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya....

Come on folks, this is our time, this our WAKE THE FUCK UP call!!!

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

Sorry this was supposed to be posted in response to GarySF and his "notonenickel" web site.

Context is key!

Gary SF · 5 months ago

Wow, you're a hysterical little queen, now, aren't you?

Not giving Obama and the Democrats any money at all and letting them know about it IS activism. It is not 'bitchy' or a 'temper-tantrum' as you suggest.

Sorry to hear that your superficial friends can't be bothered to work for our rights. But you are wrong to project their lack of action upon the entire LGBT community.

But since you seem to know everything, how about instead of tearing down ideas, you come up with one of your own?

So what SHOULD we be doing, asshole?

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

Within the first few years of returning to Kentucky 10 years ago (and out of the corner of my eye) I observed rolled eyes and such from several gray-haired Sam's Club door ladies directed at the partner and myself.
I quickly found the store manager and carefully explained the disrespect and hate crimey nature of what I saw and the monthly amount I usually spend in his store.
No screaming was required, the ladies got a whack and we've been treated like gold since.
On rare occasions in the 10 years I've also had to more directly challenge the occasional non house-trained redneck...the worst in a Cracker Barrel just south of Atlanta 3 years ago.
Make a fuss...politely or not but politely will win admirers...stores and restaurants usually deflate and bullies always do.
I don't see much activism...but I see gay couples everywhere...remind stores and such who you are and what you spend in addition to how nicely you maintain your house and yard.
Demanding respect has been our communities means of internal and external uplift no matter what extremists or interest groups attempt to foist.

PS_Jeez...Rent Birdcage or The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, pps-Ignitha's poo is the maguffin.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

What an excellent suggestion for all of us to practice. . .

and yet I fear that this only gains for us, "tolerance".

I want far more than tolerance for the lives of millions of young GLBT Americans. As I'm sure you would agree, they deserve total equality in their life.

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

Woah, nelly.

Never meant any disrespect, Gary. Guess I was right about the temper.

Anyway, kudos for you and your form of activism. I prefer something with a little more positive reinforcement, myself. Visiting officials who seem sluggish and reminding them why they got your support and money seems a little more helpful than saying you won't give more.....just my way, ok?

Also, I never said my friends were superficial! How dare you!? lol... Seriously though, they are busy and not as interested in political action as I am. But they want their rights too. I am PLEADING with people like this to get off their duffs and ACT.

It's pretty simple. Remember ACT UP? It was about ACTION, and it was effective.

I didn't say you shouldn't do whatever your pretty lil' heart desires. I am also, however, pleading with people to WTFU (wake the fuck up!).

I'm sure you're not an asshole...

Gary SF · 5 months ago

Uh...you wrote "Yeah! That'll solve it! Just get all bitchy and throw a temper-tantrum!" and you didn't mean any 'disrespect'? Maybe you need a class in self-awareness or something. It could be that what appeared to be directed to me was really directed to everyone.

But I'll take you at face value. Regarding ACT UP, I agree and disagree.

I agree that clever activism is needed right now. I disagree that we need ACT UP tactics right now.

Obama still can do the right thing and before we go down the path of 'in your face' civil disobedience, I think we need to give him a few more months.

Also, there is the potential that ACT UP type tactics could backfire on us with the public. Right now they support getting rid of DADT. We want to keep it that way.

But, if there is no movement on LGBT issues by Obama and the Democrats in the next few months, ACT UP type tactics will be justified.

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

Wow, you apparently have no sense of humour whatsoever....I'm sorry if I offended you, and no, I absolutely did not mean any disrespect. A class in self-awareness? Really....the line was NOT directed at you. It was actually directed at all who espouse this recent meme that Obama is actively screwing over the GLBT community, and getting very reactive over very small signals that I don't think mean what people are claiming they mean.

Also, I didn't mean ACT UP tactics, I meant ACT. Action will make a difference. ACT UP was effective because they acted. They also, btw, did not turn the public against AIDS/HIV funding and attention--quite the opposite.

Anyway, again kudos to you for "doing it my way!"

The public is behind us, yes, and being an activist/lobbyist for our issues won't change that. It will only reinforce it.

Have a good weekend!

fredndallas · 5 months ago

"It was actually directed at all who espouse this recent meme that Obama is actively screwing over the GLBT community, and getting very reactive over very small signals that I don't think mean what people are claiming they mean. "

So are "signals" in politics and mass communications meaningless you think? If that is your position, then you need to undertake a comprehensive study so that you can grasp the implications.

Or is it your suggestion that there have NOT been intentional "signals"? If so, I'd like to see your insightful explanation of the parade of commonly cited ones.

I certainly agree with you that apathy will result in no progress. I totally disagree that sans stimulus President Barack Obama will be a fierce advocate for moving GLBT rights dramatically forward -- which is what he promised.

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

One more lil' response to this statement:

"But you are wrong to project their lack of action upon the entire LGBT community."

Am I? I'm honestly asking. I know our community tends to be well-informed. But I am not convinced that we are as activist as we have been, or as active as we need to be to win our rights.

At any rate, let's each do our own thing, and make a difference, shall we? It is my opinion that active conversation and positive actions will make a bigger difference than saying I'm going to withhold my money from someone. But hey, if you think that will make a difference, then seriously, I applaud you! Kudos.

Let's do this.

ndtovent · 5 months ago

"This isn't your daddy's gay community." LOL, good line! It has so many connotations in so many different ways.

I know I have some sr. moments, but I thought I remembered reading that Rahm was with us, or, for equality for gays, at least as a senator. Maybe I'm wrong.

I still think we need to give Obama time and a little breathing space. In another year - year-and-a-half, I'll be much more eager to hold him accountable if I don't see results on more of our major issues.

sam nelson · 5 months ago

no more monies to dems , from this denver colorado fag.

Rob Mule · 5 months ago

FYI--I'm re-reading Joseph Hanson's brilliant and amazing Dave Brandstetter crime series, all 12 semi-sequential novels in one UK-published megapaperback.
The ground-breaking gay detective, his investigations and his life, first published in 1970 became an important cultural touchstone for my younger self...to say more would give away too much...the re-read has been a blast.
Why hasn't some some smart, stylish and gay H-wood type sought to ease their money cravings with lavishly faithful film translations???
First editions are selling for upwards of $200 per and I've always imagined I'd play a fetching Dave...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hansen_(writer)

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?binding=&mtyp...

Reality · 5 months ago

Gay people are pissed because most people in the U.S. do not believe that same-sex marriages should be allowed. This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issues, since this this belief crosses ideological lines. Hell, half my gay friends don't think they should be allowed to marry. The compromise position has been to codify civil unions, so that gays have the same privileges and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples. But that's not good enought for them and they continue to whine and claim their human rights are being violated. What pure hogwash! How can people take them seriously, when they behave so childishly? The gay rights movement reminds me of the women's rights movement at it's most shrill. Nothing we did then, no matter how positive, would appease some women. Th same is happening in the gay rights community today. Face it, gays, some people are never, ever going to accept your lifestyle as "normal." They are not going to bless it. Accept acceptance and tolerance. You have no right to demand that anyone bless your lifestyle, regardless of whether you believe you were "born gay." They don't. So if you demand acceptance from them, you must be willing to accept their point of view, too.

DouginMountVernon · 5 months ago

Dude, you are so off-base it's hilarious.

It is not about acceptance. It's about equality and civil rights, as CITIZENS. We are not pissed that some people as you put it don't "accept" us. You are missing something really important and big, which is that civil unions ARE NOT, nor will the EVER be equal to civil marriage. Period. Unless, of course, civil unions are all that are offered to everyone.

Remember that little thing....what was that, oh yeah, separate is NOT equal? Besides, who exactly has offered us to "codify civil unions" (why, THANK YOU very much! HOW GENEROUS!!).

Get a grip man. And you know what? I don't need your acceptance. If you think I'm being shrill, try listening to yourself, friend.

mirth · 5 months ago

Whew, Gramps. That must have exhausted you! Back to the recliner, you crotchety old fart, before you stroke out.

PeteWa · 5 months ago

Your entire premise and argument are based on false ideas, and complete idiotic mis / no / understanding of the topic.

Hate to break it to you, Mr. Alternate Reality, but civil unions do not now, have not in the past, and none of the "suggested changes" for the future come close to making "civil unions" equal to "marriage" as far as the rights straight married couples now enjoy legally.
We are talking a discrepency of aproximately 1000 codified rights that are bundled into "marriage" that "civil unions" do not have.
And to be very specific for you, I am talking rights afforded by the State to the individual, from tax law to hospital visiting rights, to end of life issues... nothing to do with churches (thinking ahead to your "blessed" comment, but even there... hate to let you in on the secret, but some churches already do "bless" gay marriages, much, I'm sure, to your chagrin).

Now, as for your ludicrous contention that some people are not going to "bless your 'lifestyle'..." (thinking you might have been meaning a non-religious based "blessing") all I can say is who gives a shit?
You, as a private citizen with an incredibly narrow and biased view of how the world "should" work, are free to maintain your ideas, regardless of how stupid I think you and your ideas are.
You do not matter to me, at all.
Much as my opinion of your 'lifestyle' should not matter to you one bit.
I'm not going to bless your 'lifestyle' and I don't need you to bless mine.
I don't want or give a shit one way or the other about your acceptance.
It doesn't matter.

What anyone with a working brain stem is concerned with here is equal rights. Equal protection under the law.
No one is demanding acceptance from a fool, as I said, I don't care for your 'acceptance' nor do I give a shit about your purported 'tolerance', and I doubt anyone else does either... but it's great that you feel so self important.

JustAGuy · 5 months ago

Hell, half my gay friends don't think they should be allowed to marry.

Really, that many?

I seriously doubt that anyone reading your post believes you have a SINGLE gay friend.

-S

NRafter530 · 5 months ago

Actually, I, too, have a lot of gay friends who don't think they should be allowed to marry.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

lol. human decency is becoming more "normal" than hate. you guys are losing. the tone of your incoherent rant actually shows us you know you're losing.

mozzie killer · 5 months ago

what's that saying about the fetid swamp getting more and more vile as it dries up........

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

word.

Mike_in_the_Tundra · 5 months ago

You definitely lost me when you said "lifestyle".

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Absolutely. That "whistle word" is disgusting. Right behind it is "the gays".

Õ¿Õ · 5 months ago

You can go fuckity fuck yourself.

FunMe · 5 months ago

yawn.

taylormattd · 5 months ago

"The gay community" is most certainly not comprised solely of John Aravosis and Dan Savage.

Please speak for your self instead of pretending to speak for us all.

Õ¿Õ · 5 months ago

They speak for me and everybody I know.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Learn that 'yourself' is one word before using it.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

This blog is reflecting, relaying what its readership is feeding back and by any fair reference the accounting seems quite accurate. Of course there are many GLBT in rural areas, impoverished and for other reasons do not have internet access, but of the ones that do, this blog surely must cover a wide per centage -- for good reason (they are lately excellent on covering politics that impact us greatly.)

It is a fair assumption I think that those GLBT folks who cannot access the content here may be even more outraged by current happenings.

Of course this blog does not necessarily speak for you personally -- did it say it does?

You have the perfect opportunity to speak for yourself here. What say you?

FunMe · 5 months ago

Are you from HRC?

annmarie · 5 months ago

yanno...why dont you just go write another hit piece on aravosis over at the orange pussy?

seriously you suck.

jerome · 5 months ago

US looks like a nation devastated after a war. The commnites look like they hjave been devatated by the conservatives war on middle class America

sandra · 5 months ago

i have not trusted HRC since they supported susan collins of maine for senate 7 years ago over chellie pingree. what a disaster.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

and speaking of disasters, you're probably too young to remember alfonse d'amato...

watchington · 5 months ago

So John. Stop talking about what you *could* do or *might* do, and DO IT.

Mike_in_the_Tundra · 5 months ago

HRC just called me to ask me to increase my HRC Partner's giving. I told them I couldn't until I learn more about this. They did write down my concerns.

FunMe · 5 months ago

Once again ANOTHER reason why I have no interest in HRC. I have been presented opportunities to be involved with them, but something doesn't seem right to me.

Let's what do they do? I give them $$$ and they give me an "equal" sign bumper sticker while at the same time giving away my rights?

And meanwhile, they go to all these swank events wearing these beautiful tuxedos. And great speakers and locations.

What is wrong is with this picture?

fredndallas · 5 months ago

I sure agree about HRC. There was a time, I suspect, when they were pretty effective (dare I say Clinton years), but the shift to AAAAAAAAA gay types seems pretty comprehensive.

Put another way, perhaps many in the HRC mode are upper level employees of the very corporations that could/might be urging Barack Obama & staff to "stay sane" in dealing with
"the gays". I don't know -- only speculation. I've had similar thoughts about GLAAD.

My opinion actually is that our President's reticence is due to a personal emotional problem he has with gay people and being SEEN being appropriately supportive of our equality.

In any event I think it is fair to say that HRC seems all too cozy with The Powers That Be.

DPSC · 5 months ago

Instant results have never been part of politics and you have the BIBLE BEATERS to thank for that. It took them 2000 years to make brain-washing the way of the world and they will NEVER give up their position on the world stage. GET REAL.
It's just like a bunch of spoiled children to start talk of NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA because they haven't received the results that they were promised. Again, get real and welcome to REALITY. He's been in office how long? Obama first and foremost needs to get people back to work. Marriage for Steve and Doug is not on the front burner! Because I'm a product of parents who were married and divorced (twice) I'm not a supporter of marriage on any level. And community? If you listen to John Aravosis and believe there is such a thing, just look at how Prop. 8 was managed. It was a disaster. It deserved to FAIL.
BUT, there is a solution - I'm speaking to all LGBT who are reading this.....move out of CALIFORNIA now! This State is a mess because of the budget problems and there are other States in our union that want to give you MARRIAGE! If there IS a community, this plan would already be in the works. Make the world see how committed you really are. I live in SF, ground ZERO for the LGBT world and know of many people who are planning a mass exit. Will it happen and will the world notice? Probably not, because being a community is not something GAYS are good at.

DPSC

Blueflash · 5 months ago

We are, on the other hand, pretty good at recognizing homophobes, as well as recognizing their recent penchant for giving us "friendly advice" - a sign of our progress and your type's increasing desperation that you recognize that just calling us sick perverts, moral abominations and freaks of nature no longer really works. Not that it takes any real intelligence in the case of a post like this. So next time don't waste your time.

DPSC · 5 months ago

blueflash...You completely missed the point, which means you are "pretty" good at not recognizing anything. Moving to the States that welcome LGBT's is not advice, but it's a point that should be taken into consideration to move the cause forward. CA is a lost cause -for the moment-because the bible beaters won. Next time a ballot like 8, is put to vote, the money they (mormons) will spend will be 10x the amount of what it was before. Let them waste their money, because I'll be in one of those States fighting and guiding the wave that will eventually hit them where it counts.

For the record, I've been out and proud since I was 14. 14! I came out when it wasn't fashionable. Raised strict Catholic, in a very backwards, New Mexico town. Got beat up alot, but knew better times were coming. I'm 48 now and have witnessed alot of good and even more bad within "THIS" community.

Everything is taken for granted now with no real results. Mr. Aravosis recently posted some very disturbing news about HIV in America and specifically DC. The disease is rampant and this "so-called" community could care less. Next time a ballot fails like the badly planned Prop. 8, remember what Mr. Aravosis blogged and then ask yourself about the solidarity in THIS community!

Me a homophobe?! How dare you!

And name calling like perverts, moral abominations and freaks of nature are words that came from you! Not me. Who's the homophone now?!

DPSC/S.F.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Hmmm and DPSC, are you making your suggestions in an effort to help us advance GLBT equality?

Or not.

DPSC · 5 months ago

fredndallas...YES, YES, YES to advancement and equality. The Gay community has to take the reins to get noticed. Rallies are great but unless a movement makes a real impact (money and more money) no one will care. Making a move to MA-NH-VT-IA-ME-CT will only help the economies in these respective communities that welcome LGBT's. Start businesses, buy houses raise your children. As time passes people will see you prosper and how you helped THEIR community grow! The only question they will be asking themselves is, "what were we so afraid of?" The world didn't end, the sky didn't fall and my family unit hasn't suffered." The healing will begin and it will begin to seep back to CA and all the other states that are resistant to change. We might not see it in our generation, but it will happen for future generations. Thanks.

annmarie · 5 months ago

you go john!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AxelDC · 5 months ago

First of all, HRC is viewed by many gays, including myself, as an impediment to change. "Don't rock the vote, support abortion rights and other tangetial issues and eventually, some day, Democrats will get around to helping us." In fact, I fear that HRC realizes that full gay marriage rights makes them obsolete, and want to give meaningless, piecemeal accomplishments like Hate Crimes instead of full acceptance as American citizens.

I can forgive Obama for not putting gay rights at the top of his agenda. However, allowing gay soldiers with 18 years of excellent service to be fired for being gay reeks of the bigotry that the first black president should easily recognize. The military is stealing this guy's retirement when he is 90% there. All Obama has to do is order the military to drop the case. He could even suspend DADT pending Congressional action.

If Obama thinks that he can spend his first term pretending that gays don't exist, he is going to see a serious rebellion. We are on the cusp of ultimate victory, with NY on the verge of marriage rights and more to come. Gay marriage is approaching majority support. Does Obama want to be known as the President who stood in the way of gay equality, especially when Hillary Clinton made so many promises to us and we turned her down for Obama?

James · 5 months ago

We gays are way too passive. What will it take to wake up? Perhaps if the US Government threatened to tear your family apart more gays would take to the streets? Well the US government did come for my family so I left for a more civilized country. Nine years and still no equal immigration rights, no UAFA. AMERICA SUCKS.

American gays don't deserve equality since they are not prepared to fight for it.

Mark · 5 months ago

But gay people voted for McCain in huge numbers...Why so mad at Obama now?

Amy · 5 months ago

The gay "leadership" at HRC has no motivation whatsoever to win. Of course they are winking and nodding! The promises President Obama made in campaign mode would, if kept, put HRC out of business virtually the next day. If HRC wins, who pays for their nice offices and groceries? I look to motivation. It's a good guidepost. At best, they are motivated to win small things slowly. So long as the DNC-entrenched gay glitterati have personal, six-figure employment programs based on our need for them, there will be no large scale winning.

RonNYC · 5 months ago

Perhaps if gay people lined up and booed him, he might get the message. OTOH, he might think this helps him with his friends in the hard right.

Gregory Lyons · 5 months ago

Obama is the neat-O milk chocolate spokesmodel for the neo-con, right wing agenda.

Obama backs down. That's what he does, in addition to lying.

AnotherGayInSFO · 5 months ago

Food for thought. If HRC didn't defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment three times during a Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency, there would be no same-sex marriages or marriage equality in ANY state.

More: The Executive Director of New Hampshire's Freedom to Marry Coalition said when the National Organization for Marriage started buying $50,000 market ads, a call was put out for help. HRC was the only organization who responded with funding and provided their experienced field staff members to work on the campaign.

More: The well-respected National Journal ranked HRC as the second most effective advocacy group in the 2006 elections and the fourth most effective in the 2008 elections.

More: For the past eight years, no significant piece of legislation was passed for any organization or community that weren't aligned with the Republican party.

More: Go back to articles and op-ed pieces just over a year ago, where the LGBT legislative agenda was clearly spelled out that Hate Crimes and ENDA were to be tackled first. At that, based on the make-up of Congress (no filibuster-proof Senate), passage of these two pieces of legislation were hopeful for 2010 successes.

More: Momentum is on our side. Public opinion is coming towards our side. Until we can change the Senate and get a filibuster-proof and fair minded 60 Senators, we are naive and unreasonable to expect instant gratification. The Senate is where bills are made or where they're stalled for eternity.

Lastly, I know people who work for HRC. They are the most dedicated, strategic and committed people I know. All of them could be living in the lap of luxury if they worked in the private sector. To make a comment that HRC doesn't want our community to succeed because they would be out of a job, is the most absurd comment ever. I guess doctors don't want their patients to get well also.

Visit www.hrc.org and really see what they do. It's apparent many don't know and if you don't know and don't take the time to learn, I don't appreciate your hateful misinformatioin on the only lobbying organization for our community.