Civil Rights Redux; Change we can believe in?

Goddammit!

Pardon my language. But "changing" DADT????? He's caving in to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest levels at the Pentagon. There's political support out there to repeal DADT. But when I see "changing" instead of outright repeal, the only thing I can deduce is that Obama is buckling under pressure from the bigots at the Defense Department to retain the policy.

And removing entirely the clause about a comprehensive national AIDS/HIV strategy?

I've got to say...all of my doubts about Obama and his committment to our issues are starting to come out again. I don't trust this man on our issues one damn bit.

---

by: Terry @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:07:19 AM CDT

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here

But remember, I'm Right-wing, so always did look at the DNC with a jaundiced eye.

Ok, so what are we going to do about it? What concrete actions shall we take rather than impassioned hand-wringing?

Or is it "my party right or wrong", and unconditional and uncritical support of the DNC more important than what the DNC is supposed to be for?

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:37:13 AM CDT

The Apologist

Well, I can usually be counted on at the Blend to stick up for Barack Obama at every turn.  I pledged my support early on in the campaign, and it's hard for me to back down once I become someone's biggest fan.

But I will admit - this really, really disappoints me.  I don't know if it will do any good, but I was moved to go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/cont... and write a little note.

There's a menu bar in the subject line, and I chose "I have a policy question" - I simply asked the President and his staff a) why so much language was removed, and b) to either repeal DADT or explain to the American people in plain language why he can't or won't.

I also included some stuff about why DADT is such a terrible policy and how it undermines national security in a number of ways and makes us less safe, blah blah blah.  You get 5,000 characters, but I decided that brevity was probably best, as this particular inbox is likely flooded every single day.

I'll see what, if anything, I receive in response.  And if there's something, I'll share it here.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:43:52 AM CDT

The Apologist, I did the same thing.

I sent off a comment on whitehouse.gov. I don't know what good it will do, but I expressed my serious disappointment about this. And don't laugh, but dammit, this hurts. As a gay American, a very loyal supporter of President Obama and a very loyal Democrat, to see this obvious backtracking just plain hurts.

By the way, I'm new here. I'm Terry. And it's nice to meet you all.  

---

by: Terry @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:56:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hi Terry,

Glad you're here!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:28:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wrote too

Didn't know what else to do so I wrote a comment on the White House web site too. I would encourage others to do so too. Lets express our collective voice.

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:22:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

he has proven LGBT concerns a priority, and I partially blame ourselves.

Obama says nice things but he knows that our priorities can be placed on the backburner indefinitely.

This kind of action is made easier when LGBTs themselves talk about there being "more important issues" and tout the virtues of "being patient."

If the core group can't get its resolve together, why should anyone be surprised when a politician backs off his rhetoric.

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:55:48 AM CDT

But also LGBT organizations like the HRC

have and continue to pander to the Dems and the Obama Administration. As I wrote on Joe.My.God yesterday when this story broke, we should be going to the HRC, the NGLTF, and others demanding answers. We support them with our donated dollars.

I think we should do that first because these organizations are (or should be) directly answerable to our community alone and our concerns.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:02:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

SLDN is *the* org on DADT,

and they have been ramping up, not down.  

There is NO group that speaks with one voice., so it is crazy to expect LGBTs to speak with one voice.  It would be nice, of course, but it's unrealistic.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:30:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I said "organizations" Lurleen

I only used the HRC as one example.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:33:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Anthony and kevinchi... you are both correct... (can't use right)..

As always it falls back on those who need the help to do for themselves. I know I wrote HRC yesterday and PFLAG.  I suppose NGTLF, ACLU, Lambda and SLDN, may have some say/work to do too.

I know I sent a letter bact to One Iowa yesterday when it asked for $25,000 for their wonderful ad.  I said ask HRC... all they do is roll in it. Well I got a response and they did, don't know how much HRC helped.

I see a link to the left that HRC is reducing staff but I couldn't get it open. Tough.

Joe gets anything done here and I may consider raising my partnership dues up again, till then... minimum.

We want someone to talk/do for us. I think a good start is Mel White... but they will need $$ too.

EQ CA is still after money, saying they will now tell people stories if we send it. Well if they had told stories last summer they wouldn't need it. I am sure most is just paying their mortgages anyway. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:33:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

After seeing the Courage Campaign's latest commercials

and watching their organization of the Manchester Hyatt's protest against Bill Clinton, I sent them a donation. Even though I am an Illinois resident.

I do need to do more letter writing myself of the thoughtful variety as opposed to the angry variety, though.

And I really need to pick up my writing on the issues too. I haven't written a diary here in weeks.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:39:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right. But I think the LGBT community isn't sure what it wants.

I would hope that the members of these organizations are putting pressure on their leaders to find out what is going on.

It's an old topic, but I think situations like this happen because there's no consensus about what the leading issues in the LGBT community are.  Marriage, DADT, adoption, and ENDA are competing with each other depending on where you live, and in my opinion diverting focus and resources from coming up with a coherent strategy.

I hate to bring them up, but right-wingers generally have a good idea of what their goals are, and are able to organize around them.  Gay groups, whether because they are reacting to what conservatives do as in Prop 8, always seem to be in a type of crisis mode.  

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:42:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I always wonder who keeps sending money to HRC?

  I am sure there are a bunch that still do, and I guess they have their reasons.  I don't get it, HRC hasn't done a damn thing for the LGBT community but divide the LGB and T.  

 I honestly believe there is better use of the dollars going to Local LGBT organizations, they seem to know how to get things done while HRC throws big dinner parties.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:33:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So

Surely someone will ask Robert Gibbs about this?

At what point will Obama be confronted about his administration's relative silence on LBGT issues? I'm surprised that wingnuts haven't tried to spin this around to their advantage yet--although I suppose they have, "Obama is against SSM too, you know" is now a stock response from these people.  

---

by: L Finger @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:07:55 AM CDT

Gates has already suggested on one of the Sunday morning news talk shows

that they plan to put DADT on the back burner, and he implied it was going so far on the back burner that nothing might be done at all.

---

by: oddjob @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:38:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You really believed things would be different?

The changes in the 2008 Democratic Platform, which ELIMINATED explicit mention of gay and lesbian rights which had been part of the platform for years, should have clued people in. And then there was Obama's insistence on "marriage for one man, one woman," Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren, the "accidental" omission of Gene Robinson's participation at the Inaugural festivities.... need I go on?

To be honest, I am about as surprised as Obama's backtracking as I am that the sun rose in the east this morning.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:42:50 AM CDT

Here is INSIDE track....... NGTLF has it apparently..(from JoeMyGod)

Hey, President Obama! Where did that famous list of commitments to LGBT rights go on your website? Within five minutes of Obama's swearing-in, a heavily detailed list of eight promises to us were posted: repeal DADT, support ENDA, expand adoption rights, etc.

UPDATE: The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has responded to my email.
Hi Joe,

I wanted to let you know that Rea Carey contacted the White House directly about the issue today after you alerted us to your post. Rea was told that they are changing the White House Web site to turn it into a more governance-focused site to reflect progress, as opposed to a campaign and transition site. They said they have taken out many such points throughout the site (not just on LGBT policy issues) as part of this changeover, and are apparently modifying the site over the next few weeks. We will be keeping an eye on it, but if you see changes before we do (or a lack thereof), please let us know. And thank you for calling this to our attention.

Warm regards,

Inga Sarda-Sorensen
Director of Communications
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

SO NEXT TIME all go to NGTLF first.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:47:02 AM CDT

NGLTF Update

I find the White House response noted above disturbing.  Having worked for a different level of government and having had as part of my tasks the writing of press releases and public statements, I find the softening of the statement to seem to reflect a general softening of White House support for this issue.  Given the White House's seeming lack of interest in GLBT issues in general and given Gates' statement re DADT, this seems to be a further retrenchment.

---

by: silverkjk @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:25:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll see

It's good to hear that this is happening all over the web, and it actually makes some sense that Obama's website shouldn't read like a campaign site, but rather as the writings of a sitting president.

I hope that the person responsible for the LGBT Civil Rights portion of the site is some low-level staffer who was making so many cuts and revisions that "changing" just became a word du jour at around 1 a.m. with hundreds of pages still to revise and no more hot coffee -- y'know?

I'm not saying that's what happened, and I'm not saying that I'm not concerned about the change - if "repeal" was taken away and "change" put in its place with any kind of intent on the administration's part, then that's worrying ... but living in DC, I know many, many people who were, at one time, White House and Congressional staffers who made no money, worked crazy hours, and were actually put in charge of stuff like this, and believe it or not, it's a plausible explanation, even if it's only a theory.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:56:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes it is very common

I did a very little bit of editorial type work and proofreading for staffers of a Congressperson in the 80's (I had a relative who worked in the office). Given that everything is now immediately accessible...

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:01:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DADT

Here's a solution - donate $$ to the Servicemembers Legal Defense.  They actually want DADT repealed and will be greatful to receive donations.  Here's how:
https://secure.sldn.org/page/c...

---

by: Donna @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:00:07 AM CDT

Just some rambling thoughts...

I might get yelled at, but these are just my opinions.  Don't hate.

I supported Obama for a number of reasons.  Not just because he was the least harmful to LGBT.  I have no illusions that we will get everything that we wanted and I would be surprised if we even get a third of what was "promised".  I also don't expect Obama to have to do all the work.  Our national organizations have a lot of work to do, our local organizations have a lot to work to do, and we as individuals have a lot of work to do to convince our neighbors that we are people too--with the same hopes and dreams as they have.

Anyway I've always felt the path to equality would look something like this...

1. Federal Hate Crimes - Has to come first and support seems to be there although close in the Senate.  Many states also have similar laws, some even stronger than the proposed federal law.

2.  ENDA - Is next and is going to be a battle because the bastards are really gonna play the "Trans in every school" card and the "Gays have to be hired in every church" card.  But until it is passed nothing else will move forward.

3. DADT - This one seems like such a slam dunk.  After all, the President can do a lot with this one although Congress still needs to act.  Plus, it has the most public support.  But I think this issue is more complex than we all realize.  I think there are significant structural changes and procedures that have to be made in the military from recruiting to discipline procedures to training.  I also have never thought that this would be overturned until after we were out of Iraq.  We forget sometimes that right now we are fighting in an area of the world where they have no problem with executing gays on the streets.  It is not hard to fathom that there may be internal knowledge that changes now could bolster recruiting for the enemy and strain existing relationships.  That might not be a valid point and a cop out, but it is a thought.  And yes I know the British were there and it didn't seem to be a problem, but they are not as engaged as we are.  Still, here is how I will know if my thinking is wrong and we really are screwed.  If we don't see significant drops in the number of gays being terminated from the military, which the administration can do "almost silently", then I will know that indeed we have been thrown under the proverbial bus.

4. Federal Recognition -  Is next and this might have to include full repeal of DOMA.  I don't know what rights can and can not be accomplished without repeal, but a major portion of federal rights must be in place before anything can move forward.

5. At least 15-20 States supporting full marriage or full civil unions (if there is such a thing) - I think once this final piece is in place it will lead to the ultimate showdown...

6. SCOTUS decision using the 14th amendment granting full marriage rights to gays.

These are my thoughts.  If we get the first three in the next four years with significant progress on #4 and #5 I would be thrilled, but obviously not satisfied until all six are in place.

What do you think?

---

by: Will St. James @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 22:52:41 PM CDT

Politician's promises are not quite worth their weight in... merde.

These internet lists are pretty minor stuff on a par with baby kissing and the Big Smile. They're hype. What's most important is that he seems to be postponing as much of our agenda until the next election cycle. Then it's back under the bus for us.

Whether he lists our measures for equality or not means nothing. His history does. Here it is.  

Obama's pandered since day one in a very well thought-out and single-minded effort at capturing bigot votes. It was directed by an anti-SSM, anti-choice ordained pentecostal bigot named Joshua Dubois.

Obama's pandering took the form of organizing a very large nationwide pool of anti-GLBT (by their nature) christist support groups, of removing all mention of GLBT equality from the Democrat platform from his nomination until after his inauguration. At this same time he was wooing bigots he validated their bigotry by persistently saying that bigots have friends in high places, aka 'gawd's in the mix'. Then he rubbed a little salt in the wounds by inviting a particularly rancid bigot, Warren to his inaugural, created a board of anti-GLBT spirit advisors, and promoted Dubois to run his faith based bribery effort to cement ties with christist pulpit pimps. Dubois is the new Karl Rove.

The web lists, given his persistent anti-GLBT history are just a footnote.  Obama's history places him in the same category as Clinton, a sleazy hustler.  

It's clear that periodic mass marches, organized independently of the anti-SSM, ant-ENDA and pro-cult bigots who lead both parties are the best way to fight for our agenda.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:07:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I think this issue is more complex than we all realize.

I'm convinced that would be because the senior brass is the biggest problem.  From what I recall there are already polls out there indicating the lower ranking soldiers by & large don't have a problem with the idea of serving with gay soldiers.  

The brass is the oldest part of the military, and we already know that in the USA the older you are the more likely you are to support discrimination against homosexuals.

---

by: oddjob @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:43:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Time to clean house at the defense department

I really don't care that there are little hot wars that were instigated by Bush.  Obama's decision to keep the DOD in the clutches of Bush appointees, and to not require the retirement of generals and admirals who do not fully support repeal of DODT is a signal that he may be pulling a Reagan, giving a key supporting group (with RWR, the religious right, with BHO, our LGBT community) lip service while he does as he damn well pleases. Or maybe he's pulling a Bill Clinton (WJC had major opposition to his original plan to end the discrimination, leaving us with DODT in the first place. But unlike WJC, the only serious opposition is from senior military officers and DOD appointees - not the Congress, and not the People.)

Okay, BHO has had his 100 days of honeymooning to get himself organized.  

Here's the plan for BHO to follow, and SOON:

1. replace the Bush appointees at DOD who are telling him that DODT repeal would hurt morale and can't be done;

2. retire generals and admirals (particularly at the JCOS level) who do not fully support repeal of DODT, regardless of any other qualities they may have (and maybe unretire some of the retired generals and admirals who support repeal); and

3. Once the DOD and Pentagon are being run by people who won't sabotage the repeal, order them to make it happen.

4. Permit all those who have been discharged under former rule to voluntary reinstatement to service with full back pay and appropriate promotions.

The only "change" in DODT would be to "change" it to:

Don't Ask, Don't Penalize

"It is inappropriate for superiors to ask their subordinates what their sexual orientation is.  But if a member of the military has a known, perceived or suspected sexual orientation (regardless of whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual), no discrimination against that member shall be permitted or tolerated solely on the basis of that member's known, perceived or suspected orientation. Rules against fraternization will be enforced equally regardless of sexual orientation."

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:48:44 AM CDT