-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/is-obama-giving-federal-agencies-right.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
hmmmmm
With six states having equal marriage rights, DOMA is unconstitutional in every fashion. It violates "full faith and credence", it violates freedom of religious expression and it violates separation of church and state.
Everyone in the LGBt communities needs to be in Obama's face on this, marriage proponent or not because the battleground got picked and the battle is now raging. You might not have picked this as the first battle but that choice is now gone.
We have the Obama team off message, they hate that, they want it back. We need to make them pay to do so with our civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_o...
If you are, then I hope the federal court throws the case out. That particular case has so many flaws in it that no court should hear it. BTW, yes I'm gay, yes I found that DoJ brief vile and disgusting, but I hope the court throws that one out anyway.
If you are referring to the suit brought about by Olson then I agree with you. That lawsuit is much more sound.
BUT, I think the most promising case is the Gill case file by GLAAD (which the DoJ has to decide by June 29th whether to defend DOMA or not).
There have been pleasant surprises in the strength of the reaction so far - the NYTimes editorial, the Dean interview with Maddow - but I have a frustrating feeling that something a little more visible needs to be done. Writing is great (and more effective than I think people realize), turning off the cash is great, trying to shame the morons taking part in this "gay" fundraiser is great, but something else needs to happen on the PR front - something that will threaten the Obama operation's most important asset - Obama's super-cool, not-just-another-politician image. They care just as much about that as they do about the money. What about a campaign, print, or viral video campaign along the lines of What would MLK do?/What would Nelson Mandela do?/ What would Gandhi do? pointing out that Obama up to now has essentially just been playing a visionary leader on tv. And why stick to gay issues? Obama turns out to be a master of the empty gesture in more fields than gay civil rights. Everywhere it's about changing the rhetoric, not changing the policy - "preventive detention," economics, health care - there's a pattern emerging here.
We know he played us - what we have to do now is make them fear that we can find a way to communicate that knowledge to the rest of the country. I think I can speak for a lot of us when I say I'll never be getting a lump in my throat from an Obama speech again - I've built up immunity. If we can find a way to spread that immunity the campaign loses an indispensable asset.
The odd truth about him is that he's an actor, not a leader.
To a lot of Americans, on the left and amongst the young, being timid on gay rights is UNcool and UNmodern - time to start tagging Obama with it.
And meanwhile as a lifelong Democrat my message to elected Democrats from the President downto dog catcher is.....
NO GAY RIGHTS, NO GAY $$$ !
It is possible to feel angrier.
She saying it is what we signed up for.....with Obama....
Hmmmm.
She's playing the clip of Obama being interviewed by Rick Warren.
It was vomit-worthy. They BOTH fawned all over Obama and "change" and "hope." "Give him a chance.... who cares about Rick Warren - if this is what Obama has to do to get real change, so what?" Now Randi has the nerve to tell me this is what "I" signed up for?!! WHATEVER. She lost me when she went jihad on Hillary for some unforgotten reason (probably related to Randi believing that Obama was the messiah).
Randi Rhodes is a crock and so is Melissa Etheridge and the rest of the gay celebrity circuit.
Where were they when I (with some of my straight friends and my mother) was out protesting Prop 8 passing?
Where was their money when Brad Pitt was donating $100K to the "No on 8" crowd?
Where were they with their "No on 8" signs?
Where were they when I was out protesting the CA Supreme Court decision on May 26?
Where were all of our celebrity "leaders?" Out to lunch I guess.
You can say what you want about Bill Clinton, he's worthy of some criticism, but Barry Obama makes Clinton seem like a euphemism for sincerity.
Something so bad that it utterly destroys the Obama and Democratic influence with GLBT culture forever. It's like a classic take down story with one disaster after another up to a climax of a finish!
First, they announce that they're the first administration that let gays march in the inauguration parade, but Clinton did that in '97.
Then, they announce they're the first to appoint someone to a Senate-approved position within the first 100 days of the administration, but Clinton did that back in '93.
Third, they floated the possibility of an openly gay ambassador, as if we haven't had those before.
Now this.
Is this what counts as progress in Illinois?? I'm seriously asking, because I can't think why they think they should get credit for this crap.
To play, just answer the following question:
What is the Administration giving the glbt community?
Answer: a) The back of their hand
b) Table scraps
c) Annoyed indifference
d) A shell game
e) All of the above
If you answered E, you are entitled to 2 tickets to the upcoming fundraiser, starring Joe Biden, and featuring a supporting cast of Obamapologists, because conveniently, there are still some seats available.
You still have to pay full price, but think of the networking possibilities!
Shit if Iran can Tweet their revolution, maybe we should begin now with a REAL national strike of some kind.
Fuck this shit.
Massive fail from Barry.
Seems it would be quite an interesting interview.
Well,
Americablog seems to be ( using the internet ) getting the word about about this fiasco with the Obama Administration.
Also, Rogers was WAYYYYY too apologetic for the Obama Admin if you ask me. I mean, he didn't express my outrage at all. It was almost as if he was carefully trying to sound balanced. Sometimes there is just no excuse for someone's behavior and outrage is the appropriate response.
Schultz seemed to indicate he would be on his MSNBC show this evening as well, saying he would see him later on television, or something to that effect.
I really hate when the chosen spokespeople are incapable of conveying the honest feelings of the community.
Well, here is John Aravosis...living and working here in Washington DC.....and the MSM can't find the time to interview the person who is at the forefront of reporting this Obama fiasco?
??
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/11/16/am...
My subconscious keeps telling me its Rahm, as well.
I can almost hear Rahm's brain telling him:
"By G-d, I might be a ballerina but they sure as hell won't think I'm a fag when we shaft the LGBT community again with this!"
Rahm Emanuel is definitely a mixed bag.
His voting record in Congress was decidedly pro-gay.
However, he has a reputation for being a pathological asshole and a machine politician of the first order.
If there is anyone whispering into Obama's ear about how best to play the gay-card, it would be Emanuel.
-S
So much for that.
Here is a link to the CBS/AP hybrid report:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/crimesi...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw9zJq0QGl0
The shaft.
The anti-decriimation policy which he wants to restate is meaningless. It has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever ! Also I would like to add that Bush had flirted with the idea of allowing people to designate a person who could receive their federal annuity. Right now if you die only your spouse can get an annuity vs a lump sum payment.
They thought about doing it in a way that didn't necesarily 'endorse homosexuality'. Since anyone could designate another person. They never did it ,but it seems to me that this would be an easy way for Obama to do something substantive.
This is just so disappointing from him.
Wasn't Washington supposed to be different this time around?
Got this response from the reporter shortly thereafter. They will correct the story on the web shortly. I'm going to write him back to ask that they cover this again tomorrow in the print edition and correct the record there.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Barabak, Mark"
To: Rick
Cc: "Garrison, Jessica"
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:37:52 PM
Subject: RE: Error in Story on Obama Providing Benefits to Gay, Federal Employees
That story was based on erroneous information from the White House, which just completed a briefing on the subject. There will be some limited coverage, but not comprehensive health care. An update will be posted shortly
mzb
--------
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:36 PM
To: Barabak, Mark ; Garrison, Jessica
Cc: americablog@starpower.net; Readers Rep
Subject: Error in Story on Obama Providing Benefits to Gay, Federal Employees
Dear Mr. Barabak and Miss Garrison,
Thank you for writing the story in today's paper regarding Obama providing some benefits to gay, federal employees. The issue needs visibility but the story contained an error in the very first paragraph. The benefits will not include the most important benefits such as health and retirement benefits due to the Defense of Marriage Act.
Isn't this something that the media should have research before just repeating the talking points from the administration? It's really disappointing that the most basic facts can be gotten wrong.
Also, the measly benefits that will be offered by Obama tonight are already available as evidenced by the Office of Personnel Management's own website. Please see this post at AmericaBlog.com for the details http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/is-obama-giv....
So in essence, we are being offered very little indeed. Questions that the media should be asking the president and his administration are state perfectly by activist David Mixner at http://www.davidmixner.com/2009/06/waiting-for-....
AmericaBlog should be credited for breaking the story last Friday regarding the brief filed by the Department of Justice to defend DOMA. It was the statements in that brief that finally broke the patience of the gay community with respect to Obama and the Democrats.
Look, chase it, it's on the stick right in front of your nose!
Sincerely, Obama
If not I got to see a Dr.
http://www.ltcfeds.com/eligibility/index.html#r...
It now reads:
Qualified Relatives
If you are a qualified relative as described below, you can apply even if the person you're related to does not apply, or even if the person you're related to applies but is not approved for coverage.
* Spouses of employees listed above
* Spouses of annuitants listed above
* Surviving spouses of active and retired members of the uniformed services who are receiving a Federal survivor annuity
* Parents, parents-in-law, and stepparents of living employees listed above (Parents, parents-in-law, and stepparents of annuitants and retired members of the uniformed services are NOT eligible)
* Adult children (at least 18 years old, including adopted or step children) of living employees or annuitants listed above
And yes... I too am a Fed employee who's slogged out the benefit battle for years.
Let's hope it covers DoD and DHS employees since they are no longer under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978..
Obama will announce today that the GLBT community will be given the right to vote.
Obama is looking like a very weak president. His strength and resolve has all but vanished with his presidency. It's like he stopped thinking for himself as soon as he walked into the White House and only listens to his homophobic insiders.
This isn't the change I voted for.
My father always told me that a man who will lie to you will also steal from you so I guess we should keep an eye on our wallets as well. Obama has already drained our treasury and given it to the corrupt bankers and criminal CEO's who are finding it hard to get by on only $50 million a year now. Is Obama the elitist others claimed him to be? It appears so.
http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.co...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/24benefit....