The Obama admin doesn't know how to respond to the marriage equality dominoes

The media needs to ask some decent follow up questions for once

"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples."

This always makes me super angry when I hear it. There is currently nowhere and no one on the planet currently with some political plan to individually pass the thousands of statutes necessary to give glbt people all these rights. It's just a throw-away statement. The whole notion is absurd. A reasonable estimate is that it would take over 2800 years to pass that many individual laws regarding glbt rights if it takes years if not decades to pass one now.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 20:55:02 PM CDT

But We Should Get Cocky

The democrats control the executive and legislative branches of government and they have been leading us along with carrots for a very long time now. We gave them our votes and we are getting "fluff" in return (accept maybe the Matthew Shephard Act after a whole freaking decade).
It's time we use our collective power and send a strong message to Obama and the Dems in Congress that they cannot count on our votes in 2010 or 2012 unless we get something first. We, with are most adamant supporters, represent at least 5% of the nation's voting block. That's a big chunk in terms of elections - so let's use that as our carrot to lead them down the road. If they don't follow, we won't vote.

Power is not given over freely, it must be taken.

---

by: JohnV @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 21:41:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not realistic

Sorry John but that's just not realistic. We're in a box and the Dems know it. As long as the Rethuglicans remain virulently anti-gay, it's not a credible threat to walk away from the Dems. There really is something to be said for "the lessor of two evils." I'm pissed off too but I'm also looking at reality. Right now the Dems in Washington are doing nothing for us. Nothing is one hell of a lot better than what we would have with the Christian Taliban in power.

---

by: CarbonGirl @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:46:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only one act need be passed.

Most of the EU states with marriage-equivalents passed very few laws. The UK has only passed one so far, though there was discussion of a second quite recently to remove some of the few remaining differences between CPs and marriage. In most cases EU marriage-equivalents are closer to marriage in function than US gay marriages, and those that are least marriage-like (PACS, unregistered cohabitation) are also usually open to straight couples.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 05:32:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a big difference

between other countries' laws and ours, in terms of implementation. Unless you're raised in it (and, in too many cases, not even then) it can be confusing.

Federal government is limited in the types of laws it can pass. That's the way the Constitution set things up. Fed can't do marriage law, so we can't just have a federal marriage bill and call it a day. The Constitution laid out a few areas where the Fed rules, and everything else is left up to the states - including things like marriage and divorce. That's limited, of course, if the SCOTUS rules that laws banning marriage for same-sex couples are against the Constitution. That will strike down all the laws preventing it, but it won't strike down state provisions. Each state will still have it's own laws regulating how marriages happen (age, consanguinity, etc.), how divorces happen (residence requirements, divorce terms, etc.), and what the rights and responsibilities of marriage are.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:50:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

15th Amendment's Enforcement Clause

Section 5 of the 14t Amendment gives Congress the power to pass a law that can require the states to implement same-sex marriage. Section 5 allows Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment including its Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Congress can simply say the right to marry is protected by the Due Process Clause and the right to be free from discrimination on account of sex and sexual orientation is protected by the Equal Protection Clause. A law saying states must permit same sex marriage would be an enforcement of those findings just as much as the Civil Rights Act of 1964's state actions provisions fell under the purview of Section 5.

---

by: craigkg @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:06:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And if that would work

there would have been no need for Loving v. Virginia.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:21:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

5 dominoes out of 50

way less than 10% of the nation's population.  the president will have to change his tune at some point, but let's not get prematurely cocky.

---

by: decafdyke @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 20:55:13 PM CDT

the issue isn't the number of states, it is the momentum

If this were any other phenomenon, the WH would have plenty to say about this kind of trend, particularly one with constitutional ramifications. It's quite obvious they know they are cornered and the whole mess is self-imposed.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 21:06:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I so agree

Momentum is the key, and right now, even our opponents are scratching their heads, thinking, "Iowa? Fu&king Iowa? Maybe we are on the wrong side of this issue."

You have to strike while the iron is hot, and the fact that so many other issues are more pressing is the exact reason why our reps should take the opportunity to push for equality. Once they do, they can always turn around and say to those against equality, "We have to focus on other issues now." But that scenario is not gonna happen. They need to keep a carrot in front of us to secure their seats.  

---

by: meileen @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 22:54:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

America yawns

And mainstream America let out a big collective yawn. Most people have more important things to worry about and simply don't give a crap about gay marriage. Where's the political risk? Sure....if it was put to a vote we'd probably still lose but it's not an important issue for most people and would not affect who they vote for. As you said, the momentum is there and it's being wasted. He continues to court the wingnuts that will never vote for him anyway. I just don't get it.

---

by: CarbonGirl @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:09:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But We Should Get Cocky

The democrats control the executive and legislative branches of government and they have been leading us along with carrots for a very long time now. We gave them our votes and we are getting "fluff" in return (accept maybe the Matthew Shephard Act after a whole freaking decade).

It's time we use our collective power and send a strong message to Obama and the Dems in Congress that they cannot count on our votes in 2010 or 2012 unless we get something first. We, with are most adamant supporters, represent at least 5% of the nation's voting block. That's a big chunk in terms of elections - so let's use that as our carrot to lead them down the road. If they don't follow, we won't vote.

Power is not given over freely, it must be taken.

---

by: JohnV @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 21:40:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Surely we're not already so jaded...

... that we ho-hum at "only" five states with marriage equality?

Weeks ago, five states was unthinkable.

If five states passed the same momentous legislation of any other kind, it would be considered a revolution -- as this is.

At the very least, let's recognize our own astonishing victories.  I promise you our enemies are.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 02:47:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

how about a follow-up question

ask Obama why he changed his previous position from his days in Illinois when he fully supported marriage equality?

Or, how about asking him to explain his statement during the campaigh where he said he was against marriage equality because he felt "God was in the mix" with marriage.  Why not ask him what God has to do with CIVIL marriage and the separation of church & state?

---

by: timNC @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 21:04:38 PM CDT

bingo!

I'd love to see an explanation on the record of Obama explaining why civil unions are okay and marriage equality is not.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 23:59:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Esp. since Obama...

...used to teach Constitutional Law.    

This fact drives legal scholar Jonathan Turley insane (he's a frequent guest on MSNBC).

Decades more of abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 01:57:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is monumentally shameful that our first black president doesn't support basic civil rights and equality for all Americans.

Even worse that our first black president is the product of a marriage that was illegal in several states well into his childhood.

We all know that Barack Obama secretly supports marriage equality.  We know it and our enemies know it.  Who is he playing to with the lie that he does not?

I've always expected he would have an "epiphany" regarding marriage equality into his second term.  Well, sorry Barack, history's not letting you get away with waiting that long.

Time to stop playing to the worst of our country.  Time for you to start telling the truth.  Time for you to lead -- while there's still somebody who's not already out in front of you.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 02:55:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't believe

I don't believe for one minute that we all KNOW that Obama secretly supports marriage equality  

---

by: timNC @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 05:54:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, everyone should!

He's already on the record for it.  He's a Constitutional scholar.  He's the product of an illegal (in some states at the time) marriage.  Even the church he attended for decades supports marriage equality.

The choices seem to be believing that he's either stupid (which he's not), lying before (by taking a position of political suicide then), misinterprets the Constitution to not say that all people are created equal (no evidence he believes that in any other way), that something huge (but still somehow secret) happened to him to change his mind on a matter of basic civil rights -- or he's lying because in 2008 a black man didn't need another strike against him in his bid to become president.

Only one of these is the likely answer.

For that matter, do you really think Hillary Clinton, with her marriage, gives a damn whether or not you get married?  Of course not.  John McCain?  An ex-playboy adulterer gold-digger family-abandoner?  No.  They only care about their political ambitions.

Dick Cheney -- DICK CHENEY -- is on the record as not being against marriage equality, but Barack Obama's not lying when he says he is?  Please.

In Obama's case, I'm hoping that at least one of the reasons for his lying is because he actually has a plan to help us.  If he does, I just hope that plan works.  Time will tell.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 09:50:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know no such thing

and, what's more, neither do you.

You want to believe he wasn't pandering when he said what he said in 2004, but he's pandering now. You want to believe it, so you do. But there's no objective way to know he wasn't pandering in 2004, and stating his honest opinion now. Or maybe he's pandering both times, and he believes a third thing that's never been mentioned. Unless you're living in his head, you can't know.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:54:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry you don't and yes I do.

First of all, I don't know what possible third thing there could be.

We can only judge based on the available evidence.  The conclusion that he was pandering in 2004 when it was political suicide to support marriage equality makes no sense.  I'm going with the conclusion that does.

It's not what I want to believe, it's what I conclude based on the facts.

People have been sent to Death Row based on circumstantial evidence, but I can't know when someone's lying based on their personal history and public record?  If those two thing don't tell you when someone's lying, what does?

People aren't that mysterious.  Politicians even less so.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:37:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, you don't

You can decide what makes the most sense to you, based on the limited subset of information you have - or, as you put it "the available evidence", which implies there is evidence we don't have. Without living in his head and being privy to his thoughts, you don't know.

And there are all kinds of third options. Maybe he secretly thinks marriage is outmoded, and wants to get rid of it completely. Maybe he wants to be hooking up with three women, and wants to legalize plural marriage. Maybe he's bisexual and wants to have two men and a woman. Unless one of us is a mind reader and has been within reading distance of him, neither one of us can know.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 13:23:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Best left to the States

It's a lame answer, to be sure.  But the states are proving that they're perfectly able to correct the mistakes of history without any assistance from the Executive Branch, and as long as the White House isn't getting in the way: good.

Eventually, somewhere between 25 and 30 states will have either enacted marriage equality or done a DC and simply voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and some gay couple from Alabama or Oklahoma will sue for equal protection under the laws.  They'll lose, and appeal ... lose again, and appeal again ... and eventually, they'll make it all the way to the Supreme Court, who will agree that it really sucks to be gay and living in one of the handful of states that doesn't and will not in the near future allow gays to marry, and with a whack of the gavel will settle the whole question, and marriage equality will be the law of the land.

That's my prediction, anyway.  I don't think I'll ever see a President take a stand on this issue - but luckily, I don't think I'll have to.

"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 @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 21:27:40 PM CDT

you know, they always complain about us litigating.

but when they leave us no choice, what do they expect?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 22:03:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just how lucky is he that, 'it was left to the states' in 1961.

And his mom and dad happened to live in one where they could get married. Not sure that as a mixed race bastard he could have been elected.

We should make him say something about Loving vs. Virginia.  Ah well, he's got a lot of other fish to fry...

 ....and now DADT and the Military Defense Readiness Act will get to be on front burner again.

So much easier to give equal rights to all. 

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 @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 22:53:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We need to go further than Loving v. Virginia

I really wish someone would remind him that pre-Lincoln, he and Michelle wouldn't have been allowed to be legally married in most states. They would have had to make do with a nice little "commitment ceremony" and a "domestic partnership" if they were lucky. They would have had no spousal rights, and no parental rights to their own children. Is that scenario familiar to anyone here?

It's a nasty, awful thing to say, but damn, will it drive the point home loud and clear. That people are still treated this way in America in 2009 is downright shameful.

I could kiss Jake Tapper for putting Gibbs on the spot like that. I'd buy him a drink, as well, for a few good squirm-worthy follow-up questions.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 00:53:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brilliant Keori!

I truly believe that Robert Talbot's testimony swayed Baldacci - "separate but equal" wasn't and still isn't.

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 06:22:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh so true that it won't come from our president.

Equality is like water. It has no bounds, and will continue to move along the path of least resistance. More and more states will provide additional protections for us, and yes, gay marriage will be decided by the supremes. I'm just hoping that the Dems who currently run and hide and say "states rights" and "no to marriage, yes to civil unions," will NOT be the ones taking credit for the advancement of civil rights when we finally do get our equality.

---

by: meileen @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 22:59:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Funny thing I've noticed

Rethugs are usually the ones screaming "States' rights! States' rights!" when it comes to things like...well, pretty much everything except LGBT issues. At which point they do a 180 swivel and start panting after federal constitutional amendments to deny us legally protected families and lives free of legal discrimination.

Typically Democrats are the ones agitating for bigger federal government when it comes to...well, pretty much everything except LGBT issues. At which point they do a Harry Reid, hide under the table, and scream, "States' rights! States' rights!"

What a country we live in, eh?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 00:58:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It just goes to show...

that politicians are ultimately all the same, irrespective of party - spineless con-artists. Screaming "states rights" (especially on the part of the Dems) is the ultimate means of abdicating responsibility because they're scared of the consequences of giving an honest answer.

That said, American politicians are amateurs at obfuscation compared to their British counterparts, who are highly skilled at taking minutes or even hours to answer an incredibly easy question, usually one where "yes" or "no" would suffice, without actually answering it at all.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 06:13:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know...

From the start I lacked faith in Obama re: LGBT issues.  He's living down to my expectations, so I'm just not surprised.

---

by: aggieric @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 22:55:03 PM CDT

I want to know how MALIA and SASHA respond....

When they find out that their classmates 2 Moms or 2 Dads 'aren't married.'...because it is agains the law. They are attending an integrated school right?

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 @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 23:38:16 PM CDT

Malia and Sasha

Are attending one of the most expensive and exclusive private schools on the planet.  I also went to one of those (part of the acronym "St. Grotlesex") and can tell you that while the quality of the education is fabulous, when it comes to the outside world these little CEO factories are completely myopic.


Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 06:33:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm disappointed but not surprised.

I was behind Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, because his positions on every issue, including marriage equality, were proudly, uncompromisingly progressive. Obama and Clinton were both visibly anxious to avoid saying anything they could be pinned down about. Obama was "against Prop 8", but in such a wishy-washy way that they could use his quotes in their ads, and he never tried to have the ads pulled. So what do you expect? When marriage equality does succeed in a majority of the states, lukewarm "progressives" like Obama will no doubt try to tell us how hard they fought the good fight for us. And so it goes...

---

by: ChicagoMolly @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 23:39:33 PM CDT

I think President Obama needs to be pushed on this issue,

He is trying to have its cake and eat it to.  He needs to be asked why he changed his position from being for Marriage Equality to against it?  But than again I suppose if he stays out of the way, and moves forward on his campaign promise to repeal DOMA and DADT. That would be fine enough.

I don't expect him to say any thing.  But don't expect me to be voting for him in 2012.  That is not happening.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 23:47:33 PM CDT

It's not 2000 and it's not 2004, it's 2009.

There's a sea change in the works in terms of public support for GLBT rights on three key questions; same sex marriage where the polls are moving in our favor and ENDA and hate crimes where the polls are already overwhelmingly in our favor.

But never mind that, Obama turned his back on same sex marriage in 2000 and he's not about to change his mind. Why? Partly because he's a gutless wonder, an unprincipled panderer who, like all presidents before him since Lincoln, is a hustler in it for the money. And partly because he's fighting yesterdays battles. His whole approach to LGBT rights is subordinate to his determination to out-Rove Rove, of getting elected by bigots no matter who gets run over by the bus.

On the economy he's adopted Bush's basic approach: welfare for the rich and austerity for working people with the occasional fig leaf to fool the gullible. The same is true of the war. The Democrats and their cousins the Republicans couldn't summon up a teaspoon of actual principle between them if their lives depended on it.

Whether the Democrats like it or not the piper will be paid. Obama is ignoring historic changes in the situation and fighting the battles of 2000 and 2004. It's all he can do because the Democrats have no understanding of history. They don't understand what happened in 1776 or 1860. They don't look forward to change, they oppose it. That explains why they and the Republicans are right centrists and reactionaries, but not why people who want change support them.

Those who refight the last war, like the French sitting smugly behind the Maginot line in 1940 are in for a nasty surprise.
 

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 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 01:44:18 AM CDT

WOW!

Donal1944 wrote:

Why? Partly because he's a gutless wonder, an unprincipled panderer who, like all presidents before him since Lincoln, is a hustler in it for the money. And partly because he's fighting yesterdays battles. His whole approach to LGBT rights is subordinate to his determination to out-Rove Rove, of getting elected by bigots no matter who gets run over by the bus.

I'm sorry that there isn't a rating choice for "WTF?"  Perhaps the mods can add a fifth option?

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 06:39:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your seem to be stunned by an honest, as opposed to an apologists, description of Obama and the Democrats.

Maybe if you read less of the canned party line propaganda in the MSM and more of the independent, aka, left press you'd have a more balanced view.  

Maybe you'd like to tell us what you disagree with and why? That is, if you're up to it.  

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 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:28:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the money?

I don't think POTUS is the best job for that.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 14:43:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm writing in...

Perez Hilton in 2012.  OH, why not?

---

by: Bruno @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:03:17 AM CDT

again...

anyone who clearly says "i believe marriage is between a man and a woman" "because I am a christian" is a HUGE problem.  Most evangelical christians have no problem with civil unions even though they think homosexuality is a sin.

Why are people so surprised that obama is not the "fierce advocate" for GLBT persons?

Did you think he would change his mind because a few glbt voted for him?

Doesn't work that way for christians whose relgious beliefs overflow into their workplace.  Never has never will.

---

by: MarcAdams @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:52:30 AM CDT

Oh, thank f@cking God

that someone finally asked Gibbs about this.

Now we need another person to do the same. And another. And another.  

---

by: L Finger @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:59:11 AM CDT

I wrote a letter to the President

Expressing my displeasure at this, and explaining from my point of view the similarity between leaving same-sex marriage to the states and leaving interracial marriage to the states.

If it has an effect, I will be very very pleased. If it doesn't, it's back to more loud and stompy forms of protest.

---

by: Kittyburger @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 05:01:33 AM CDT

WHOUSE held meeting MONDAY...This from NYTimes....

The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama's deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as "don't ask, don't tell." Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be "unfolding exactly as we thought," he was pleased.

"They have a vision," Mr. Solmonese said. "They have a plan."

WELL IT BETTER ALL GET DONE IN 2009! That's all I have to say.  
Wonder when Joe will 'surprise' us with results....

Meanwhile, Lt. Choi, WESTPOINT GRAD...got thrown out of military yesterday.
See him on Rachel Maddow's show tonight! (She feels 'responsible' because he elected to come out on her show 3/19/09... He is cofounder of KNIGHTS OUT,
there is fb group..join)

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 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:00:06 AM CDT

Are people ready to sacrifice...

The rest of the Democratic agenda for this? I mean seriously, the Democrats will have to fight for their seats next year and the Repubs will hammer them on this like they did in 2004. Are you really ready to sacrifice the enviornment, healthcare, energy and a host of other issues for this.

Obama has an entire collection of issues that he wants to get done during his presidency and he recognizes that all of it can be torpedoed on this one issue.

WE lose nothing by their silence on this marriage issue, because they are perfectly content to let the dominoes fall and not get in the way. Its mind boggling that things are going our way and people are still trying to force him to burn through his political capital on something that changing without it.

Can we be a little less myopic and recognize that there are ALOT of issues on the line here

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:22:37 AM CDT

Constitutional Lawyer/Professor

Why is Obama against Gay marriage?

Obama taught constitutional law but can't tell the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage? There seems to be a cognitive slip here.

---

by: macbill @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:46:35 AM CDT

Exactly.

And given that even Dick Cheney can tell the difference, it seems unlikely that Obama cannot, doesn't it?

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:51:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The votes.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 14:44:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd be pushing for ENDA first

Why ENDA first? It's been around for a while, and doesn't push quite as many buttons as long as we get our message out first - "it's a matter of fairness". It is true that a vocal percentage of the population will take up the plaint of the 'persecuted' straight white man - " the ____ took my job" - but if presented with cases where people with outstanding records have been fired for being LGBT, most of the public will find the people arguing for at-will firing of LGBT to be mean-spirited.

I don't think we are near the repeal of DOMA.

---

by: NancyP @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 12:57:24 PM CDT

It's clear that Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress would

rather be waterboarded that talk about gay rights.  

---

by: DilworthDem @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 16:00:24 PM CDT