Watch one progressive bus run over Rachel Maddow and the LGBT community

DADT needs to go yesterday

As usual an issue that is important to all people is labeled a "gay" issue (or insert other issue people like to marginalize because it is easier than actually standing up for what you say you believe in)

DADT is a shame on our nation. It protects discrimination against gay people as well as making sexual assault in the military harder to report (which is already at 8 reports a day). The policy itself is discriminately applied with higher percentages of women and women of color being discharged under DADT.

How can we continue to pretend we are a nation who believes in freedom if we deny those who protect that freedom access to it.

DADT only works to bigotry and discrimination in the US.

As with "women's" issues the progressives like to have us help push the bus but promptly allow us to stay back there when it is thrown in reverse.

---

by: ArmyVet @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:26:53 AM CDT

It's all about the BRAINWASHING folks..

Even with his so-far battered and broken promises to LGBTs there is MUCH still to admire about Pres. Obama.

HOWEVER, far worse than his LGBT agenda appearing to have disppeared into Witness Protection is that the process of building a personality cult around him during the primaries has resulted in convincing some gays to care more ABOUT DEFENDING HIM than they do defending their own rights and the rights of their community. Brainwashing is not too strong a word.

When their endless, ruthless, ever-mutating distortion and denial of facts doesn't silence rational critics, they turn to demonization...everything from "Hater!" to "Racist!" to personalized slurs. There's one whose viciousness knows no depths. He has repeatedly robbed the grave of my late friend, gay rights pioneer Leonard Matlovich, to accuse me of smearing HIS name by daring critique Obama: "You're a repulsive embarrassment to Matlovich's memory. ...I can only question what he ever saw in you."

Having known him for 13 years, I think I'm a better judge of what Leonard himself would think of my comments, and, were he still alive, what he would be saying and doing. He wouldn't just be criticizing. Having been the first to out himself to the military to challenge the ban, having been arrested wearing his Air Force jacket in front of the White House by police wearing yellow rubber gloves when he protested Reagan's passive genocide by AIDS, he'd likely have already chained himself to the White House gates of this administration.

We must not allow our mouths to be sewn shut by those, gay and straight, who've ceded their souls to what is most aptly characterized as the Obama Borg.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:28:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

stupid and insulting

This Obamabot ridiculousness was a stupid and insulting argument during the primary and it's a stupid and insulting argument now.

It's sad and pathetic that elements of the LGBT community who tried to hitch our horse to various losers are now trying to recycle the same tired non-arguments.

 

--ish

---

by: ish @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 13:00:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, ish, you disprove your own claim with every syllable

Own it, dear. Walks like a robot, talks like a robot....

Obot Tape Loop #42: "Obama is flawless. This is not about anything you falsely allege he's done/not done but because you simply are 'Obama haters'." [how many times have you thrown that dish, ish?] "And you hate him simply because he is not Hillary."

As Blackwater author Jeremy Scahill said last week on Bill Moyers Journal in relation to the war:

"There's no question that Obama inherited an absolute mess from President Bush. ...[But] we have a sort of blue-state-Fox culture in the media. Where people are willing to go above and beyond the call of partisan politics to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's time to take off the Obama t-shirts. This is a man who's in charge of the most powerful country on earth. The media in this country, we have an obligation to treat him the way we treated Bush in terms of being critical of him. And, yet, I feel like many Democrats have had their spines surgically removed these days, as have a lot of journalists."

Insert "gay/straight Obots" and stir.  

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:01:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But you are, blanche, you are

You and many many other blog commenters with your same bullying tone and lack of substantial argument have in fact made numerous expressions of buyer's remorse for Obama and nostalgic note of your previous support of Hillary Clinton. I'm not inventing that.

I'm not actually negating any of the community's frustration, which is obvious. What I am negating is this hyped-up campaign of hyperbole, led by people who never actually supported Obama in the first place, for reasons that were as questionable then as they are now.

What I call upon the community to recognize is the dangerous trajectory that you Obama haters (and yes that's what you are "Michael") are playing with as you attempt to steer a frustrated community into open opposition to the Obama presidency.

Rachel Maddow may be enjoyable entertainment but the community led by a TV network's quest for ratings and popularity is one that will soon find itself floundering and leaderless. Rachel Maddow is not our community's leader, and nor should be the defeated Hillaryites who sensing blood in the water have come back to feed. They offer no real solution and their leadership will end in tragedy for our community as what POSES LIKE righteous opposition soon turns bitter into eventual rightward drift.

If you think I am making that up look at what has happened in many gay communities in Europe where squeaky clean and tidy Eurofascism has found acceptance among a privileged white layer that now includes some gays.

I'm frustrated with a lot of what Obama has done or not done. But the battlelines are clear for all to see, and I am not eager to stand with the wingnuts and American religious fascists who are mobilizing against not only the centrist Obama as he is, but the symbolic Obama we voted for with the (as yet) unfulfilled promises.

Which side are you on?

--ish

---

by: ish @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 15:50:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yet again Psychic Ish explains it all

Tea leaves? Tarot cards? Crytal ball? You've got some kind of balls alright: "Obama haters (and yes that's what YOU ARE "Michael").

Your mental stretch marks are showing again. You declare someone something that neither you nor anyone else can "know" without MY saying I am, and, then, still not be certain.

You could take the care to write, "You sound like you hate Obama," but reality is something you repeatedly demonstrate is irrelevant when it comes to making excuses for him. And you NEVER defeat the facts, you only through distortions and denials at them, and, when that fails, shoot ad hominems at the messenger.

It doesn't matter that you're "not eager to stand with the wingnuts and American religious fascists," your tactics are so identical to theirs that you're eligible for a Jerry Falwell Memorial Award.

FACT 1: EVERY critic of Obama, to a person, COULD thoroughly hate him and that would NOT CHANGE the fact that he has, at best, shoved his repeated promises to the LGBT community on the shelf somewhere behind the Puppy Chow. WHERE does it say one must declare their love for him to EARN the right to criticize him? Demagogue much?

"They offer no real solution and their leadership will end in tragedy for our community as what POSES LIKE righteous opposition soon turns bitter into eventual rightward drift [toward a domestic version of gay embraced Eurofascism]." Paranoid much?

What a bunch of HOGwash. A legal freeze on DADT discharges is a REAL solution to DADT discharges that is neither insubstantial nor hyperbolic. Permanent? No, nor would be repeal for a future Congress could reenact it. Again: distraction meant to defend doing nothing.

Suggesting that the man who repeatedly promised to "put the full weight of my administration behind [this & that]" AT LEAST publicly, ON CAMERA, reiterate his alleged LGBT rights agenda rather than simply letting loose another paper airplane lost among the untold numbers sent aloft everyday, is neither unreasonable, unfair, nor undoable.

Which side am I on? I am on the side of LGBT rights and equality. You may never have your head shaved as classic collaborationists have but your deviousness and willful betrayal of your own in the name of Der Obama is just as bald.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 16:54:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sides?

Which side are you on?

The side of progress, fairness, and legal equality. Not fawning sycophantic lock-stepping. Blind celebrity fandom is for teenagers who read Twilight, not adults who have to fight tooth and nail for what is constitutionally ours.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 17:00:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sides!

The side of progress, fairness, and legal equality.

Glad to see we're on the same one then.

Not fawning sycophantic lock-stepping. Blind celebrity fandom is for teenagers who read Twilight, not adults who have to fight tooth and nail for what is constitutionally ours.

Well I'm sure you're not talking about me. But those sure are admirably constructed strawmen.


--ish

---

by: ish @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 17:13:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DailyKos is reliably homophobic, and now so is DemocraticUnderground.

I don't know what the deal is with those sites, but they aren't at all progressive when it comes to human rights.

There's an ongoing purge at DU of gay posters and their allies. Hateful, openly homophobic posts are protected there, and anyone who complains, even if the complaints are expressed within the rules, is banned without warning and threads are disappeared without a trace.

DailyKos has never made any pretense of being in favor of equal rights for gay people.

The people with money and power are clamping down. They don't want us talking about gay rights. It's up to independent blogs like yours, Pam, to keep the message alive.

---

by: night owl @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:30:29 AM CDT

As a regular DKos poster

I have to disagree.

I have posted many times there on marriage equality and other LGBT issues, and have received many comments of support as well as had conversations that changed minds.

The fact that there is so much discussion at DKos is a clear indication that our civil rights are not a Democratic or even "progressive" issue. They're not Republican, either. They're a bipartisan, human issue. The more people know us and the more they read, hear, and see our stories, the more visible we are and the harder it becomes to ignore the moral requirement to ensure equality for everyone.

We're fortunate on the one side that the Democratic party is a big tent -- that's why we have a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House, which leaves us somewhat more likely to walk out of this legislative session or the next with more than we walked in with.

The semi-unfortunate side of that big tent is that there is no "purity test" for being a Democrat, and the diversity we all value is allowed for within the party -- including a diversity of views on us (even from some of our own). The big tent with a lot of voices moves painfully slowly -- way too damn slowly for me, sometimes, but I'm trying to be as patient as I can, which is hard, and to work WITH the people who will listen to bring them and more people they know on board.

I simply can't agree with you that "DKos is reliably homophobic"; I think a better description is that there is still a lot of discussion on our issues in that community, a great deal of which is supportive.

---

by: ElsieElsie @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:51:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're wrong about Kos

I believe that Markos himself is very much in favor of equal rights under the law. Again, he is a partisan Democrat and that's his thing. His mission is to get Democrats elected, not equal rights for LGBT. Certainly I wish he would work with us a bit more on this but saying he is not in favor of equal rights for LGBT people is just wrong.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:27:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think DailyKos is reliably homophobic

It's too huge a community to paint with a broad brush like that; what one can say is that it is an arena where you can easily find openly LGBT-hostile progressives who aren't pleased with open criticism of President Obama for his silence and inaction in laying out any public plan of action as a "fierce advocate."

In that comment thread, you see plenty of people shooting down the progressive foot-draggers and apologists. That's why I put it out there -- we rarely see that kind of polarizing debate here, and I also wanted to point out that Rachel was getting slammed hard for doing reporting on this issue when she, as others noted, actually covers LGBT issues less than Keith Olbermann, who doesn't get slammed for LGBT advocacy.

It proves my point that progressives have a hard time seeing Rachel's politics without coloring their view through the lense that they know she is a lesbian.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:56:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Any ad hominem will do...

Any ad hominem or homonem will do for the spreaders of the O'virus that infects Kos. So soon we forget that, at one point, many regular Kosnacks who'd committed the sin of becoming Mrs. Satan er Hillary supporters were banned from the site during the primaries. They are post Right, Progressive, Left; post ideology; monotheists whose only God is O.

Hell, if Rachel were BLACK and straight they'd call her an Oreo or self-loathing or whatever.

The homophobia, the lesbian bashing is just icing on their urinal cake.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 15:49:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In retrospect, I agree that my comments about DailyKos were overly sweeping.

I retract the broad-brush against DailyKos. However, I stand by my statements about Democratic Underground, because I've read there for many years and personally witnessed the homophobia, which has grown a lot worse over the past year.

---

by: night owl @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 14:26:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DKos is a Dem site, not a progressive site

And yes, there is a difference. People go to DKos to worship at the Altar of the One, not to discuss progressive issues, especially if those issues are about historically persecuted groups like women and LGBT people.

Pam, your blog intelligently, thoroughly, and without apology discusses human issues surrounding misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, police brutality, religious fascism, etc. These are issues that go far beyond any one party. Which is the main reason I'm here and not at DKos.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 17:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We knew this about Democratic Underground at the very least

when we were told that "reasonable people can disagree" about homophobia.  The prevailing consciousness now is that Obama has a plan:  he's playing 37-dimensional chess while the short-sighted GLBT community is playing checkers.  Just wait--he'll get around to securing equal rights for gay people, just give him 15 or 20 years.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 13:56:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It all comes down to strategy

We have to pressure Obama and the Democrats.  While some of the comments on Kos are irritating, we on the left have a huge problem on our hands:  We are fucking lazy.  

Those on the right may be lazy too, but they have huge organizations in place (churches) to get tax-exempt dollars and organize and motivate people (with threat of going to hell) to 'activism' that counts - calls to Congress, expensive lobbying, etc.  

Then there are the Obama apologists who refuse to see things as they are: Obama is homophobic. One cannot be against same-sex marriage (equality) and advocate for a 'separate but equal' status (civil unions) and not be called homophobic.  There ARE degrees of homophobia, and of course, Obama is not a gay-basher, etc.

The only thing that is going to work for us is tremendous popular support or shame.  Or maybe both.  

Again, I propose that we not donate one nickel to Obama and the Democrats AND we fund our own media campaign to foster wide-spread support for our causes (and to diminish the voices of our 'enemies' by using their own words against them - hypocrisy is a wonderful vehicle for doing this).

http://www.notonenickel.blogsp...

---

by: Gary SF @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:34:33 AM CDT

hmm

Excellent post as uusual Pam - and one reason i call myself a socialist now after the election. Liberals aren't progressives and the progressive label is part of the way the Oligarchs like to run politics in America - Who benefits from the so called Culture War and the "third rail" issues , why the politicians of course. I agree with commenter that Kos and DU and sometimes alternet for that matter is realiably homo and trans phobic.  There is also a huge number of people who are still stunned we have a Man of Color in office. People such as myself that are overjoyed at the pure history of it.  Anyhow - all they understand is money and these issues always bring in the campaign donations. The system is corrupt. What is the answer ? Multi prong of course - And adament - its always been that if the LGBTQ got serious about their issue as a population, of at least 35 million we are called militants and activists..oh the scarey angry gays as you alluded to, if we assimilate - and do not hold the politicians feet to the fire , by means of frequent calls letters demonstrations  we will get nothing..There is also the Malcome X approach (which i like )  - Doing it for ourselves. Just ceasing rights - fighting case by case - Liberals democrats so called progressives have always been fickle. Where is the pro peace movement - We were promised an end to this endless war as well BUT in fact ITS a one busines party as corrupt as EVER - One read of Howard Zinn and perspective is achieved. We do need a national strike , a slow down. And a renewal of PRIDE - does the LGBTQ really want our civil rights ? IF so we are going to have fight harder and right now - frankly all i want is the cornerstone of our future rights the INCLUSIVE Hate Crimes and the Inclusive ENDA - we are not an HIV or Marriage Movement - we are an equality and justice movement - These 2 bills are the cornerstone of all the other rights..

finally as a friend said - on my blog and others Obama is reminding him of the Clintons more everyday -  thats the problem right there. AS a community we got played AGAIN.

---

by: proudprogressive @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:11:38 AM CDT

The "progressive" Community IS NOT OUR FRIEND!!!!!!!

I would thin the treatment of Mike Rogers, Krby Dick and their film Outrage would make that clear, but apprently some of you people need flash cards.

In a recent oline "chat" in Pravda the "liberal Ana Marie Cox said:

" 'Outing' closeted gays is so often the wrong thing to do that I think it should be avoided in all cases--even if the closeted person is behaving hypocritically. As I've said before: A gay Republican is probably has a hard enough time living with himself to begin with."

We need to place as much distance between ourselves and such "friends" as possible.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:16:37 AM CDT

Ana Marie Cox is not a progressive

Anybody who believes that wasn't paying attention to her happily swinging on the tire at McCain's barbeque prior to the election. She's not a wingnut in my opinion but she isn't progressive.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:09:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i couldn't agree more David

This notion that somehow it is wrong to out hypocrits shows an incrediable lack of understanding and of history - i have no tears for the Roy Cohns of this world - NONE out em all. Especially those closet cases who actively hate on us, Like Cohn said in Angels in America - h/t to Tony Kirshner - all they love is power. Its our job to speak truth to power and as Larry Kramer says - we are not a community we are a population - all lgbtq who rationalize being a part of problem - or so called conservatives in the parlance of our day whatever the fuck that means , need to be called out on it. Its like the perrenial phenon. of how the poor either don't vote , or actually vote against our own interests. Ana Marie Cox is no friend - there is a place for manners, professionalism in social intercourse with the Congress people - but its a matter of PRIDE - hypocrits need to be exposed. period full stop. How else will the festering boil of hatred and dishonesty ever get lanced. Its all part of process of making laws. IF they vote against their own kind - it surely needs to be brought to light.  The closested congress people who hurt the lgbtq need to know there are consequences. Not only that but hiding indicates shame - the antithasis of equality..OUT em ALL !

---

by: proudprogressive @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:17:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, they don't have a right to live their lives as they want?

What if they don't "hate" on the LGBT community? What if they aren't even in positions of power?

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 02:53:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DADT doesn't need to be first

However, it should probably come before making public statements congratulating Stephen Colbert on doing a USO tour and ordering Colbert's head shaved or welcoming Conan O'Brien to the helm of the Tonight Show.

How much time and effort would it take to include in any of his many duties to make a statement that he wants DADT out of committee and on the House Floor?  How much time and effort to even quietly issue an Executive Order to suspend separations under DADT?

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:26:18 AM CDT

Why is it surprising

that we see comments like these in the larger progressive community?  We see exactly the same muck here at the Blend from any number of collaborationists.  ""He's only been in office for a short time."  "He has more important things to do."  Etc., etc.  If even clueless LGBT people are willing to give Obama a pass, how can we expect clueless straights (if that isn't redundant) to be any better?

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:27:39 AM CDT

Certainly we've had our share of Obamabots and apologists

I myself got drawn into a flame war with one, which I very much regret. It has always been my theory that human beings are wired to form cliques in order to have someone to whom they feel superior. The reaction by some people to any suggestion that Obama isn't this great, progressive savior is a clear indicator of this. It isn't limited to the heterosexual community either. There are many, many LGB people, such as Aravosis, who would exclude transgendered people from the larger Gay rights movement. There are transgendered people who like to feel superior as well. Certainly the more EVOLVED among us should attempt to be better than that but the need to feel more important with more to offer is strong. I used to belong to a group of transgendered veterans that came into being all high minded with the stated goal of assisting active duty and veteran TG service members but it very quickly degenerated into a clique of about six to twelve members who wound up calling the shots for everyone and making the decisions for everyone. It soon became clear those decisions were designed to maintain their hold on power. It quickly devolved into the exclusion of and shutting down of all opinion but those of the officers on the board. We, gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people don't have the numbers to affect change without sticking together and voting with the larger progressive community. Thus, Obama feels no pressure to address any of our issues because he knows that we have no other choice. It's cynical and it's wrong but there it is. We'll never have equal rights in this country without massive and effective demonstration or the spontaneous enlightening of other peoples' minds.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:51:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not an Obamabot nor an apologist

And you didn't get drawn into it, you started it. My first post you took to start it wasn't aimed at you (clearly visible through thread-level). You even played this emotional "I'm a victim" thing.

My point is just that the people stop pretending they know what other people, even politicians, think. But I agree for example with Rachel Maddow's segment yesterday and the DKos diary.

And I think it is terrible to compare me or others who didn't want to take part in the screaming contest to the homophobes in the comment section of the DKos diary.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:33:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't mention you at all

This isn't about you.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:27:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The people at DailyKos and Markos himself

Are all partisans. I have never thought of most of them as particularly "Progressive". Several of the front page posters are as defensive or more so to criticism as any right wing blogger, if marginally more reality based. Anything that can be remotely seen as criticism sends David Waldman into apoplectic fits of rage and Dana Houle likes some torture and apparently "24" because Dana loves to refer to "the ticking time bomb" scenario as if that is somehow credible. Out of the lot, I would say that Darksyde is the most progressive and Markos is the one who most supports equal rights for LGBT people. You'd have to ask him why he allows his front page authors to be so ridiculously thin skinned about criticism and so hostile to LGBT civil rights but he and his site are partisan by intent and design. I go there when I want to read about elections. Otherwise, I try to ignore their blather.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:35:38 AM CDT

Exactly.

With DKos, anything that Bush or the Republicans did is reprehensible.

But, if it is Obama or the Dems, they twist themselves into all sorts of verbal and ethical contortions trying to defend and justify those actions.

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 02:58:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pam...you're being dishonest...

* He has to handle the more important (name the progressive issue) first, not spend all his political capital on divisive issues like LGBT rights.
Last time I checked, the LGBT community cares about many of the same things the progressive community cares about -- reforming health care, protecting the environment, restoring the country's reputation abroad, etc. And they are important issues to address after Bush's and the GOP's reign of terror. I don't hear anyone in the comments of this blog arguing that LGBT rights should come first.

...with this comment. You most certainly ARE demanding that LGBT issues come first.

I genuinely believe that you don't think that is what you are doing, but that is EXACTLY what you are pushing. Your whole basis of criticism is that Obama has not pushed LGBT issues to the front of his agenda. To date, people are actively saing that he lied or was dishonest during the election, despite the fact that he has only been in office 5 months. Just because something does not get done NOW does not mean that it won't get done at all.
You've brushed aside any suggestion that they should take care of oother issues first and foremost. Plus the whole thing about multi-tasking is intellectually dishonest. He's NOT just dealing with one thing...he's got at least TEN issues of critical importance that he has to deal with. Your real anger is that LGBT issues is not at the top of his list. You and other have been totally unwilling to let them rack up some victories on other more popular issues first.

Or ignore the lack of public comment or press release from the White House regarding any of the landmark marriage equality gains occurring around the country. Look at what happened on the day Prop 8 was upheld by CA's Supreme Court -- the White House pumped out a press release announcing President Obama's Proclamation of National Hurricane Preparedness Week, but nothing on Prop 8, and Robert Gibbs could only squeak out during the day's presser that "I have not talked to the President about it." He never did follow up with any news about what the President's reaction was, btw.

I really am curious what you would do if the President came out and said something on this issue...THAT YOU KNOW HE OPPOSES. He could say...

"I firmly oppose the measures adopted by the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa. As I've said before, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those state legislatures took actions that are contrary to that Idea. I agree with the Governor of Vermont's original assement that civil unions provided all of the required legal benefits. However, I respect the right of states to handle this issue in whatever manner they see fit.

My administration will remain committed to promoting civil unions as a viable option for LGBT americans"

That statement would be fully in keeping with his position but would do NOTHING to help your cause. In fact it could harm the situation in Maine and actually put some wind in the sails of the opposition in Iowa.

You should stop demanding a statement when you know that his position is in direct opposition to your own.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:37:07 AM CDT

Depends

Are we talking about Obama the Christian (evangelical as of late, it seems) or are we talking about Obama the Constitutional scholar who thinks that expanding rights are entirely in keeping of what a Constitution is supposed to do.

Actually, it's the "split screen" nature of his position that's the problem and is giving homophobes license.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:46:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You mean Obama the constitutional scholar,

the one who won't prosecute torture? The one who is blocking disclosure of more evidence of torture? The one who is still engaging in detention without trial? The one who is not only not reducing the powers of the imperial presidency, but is even intent on expanding on those powers?

That Obama?

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 03:03:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep.

"That One."

And "progressives" are not pleased at all with the way Obama has handled the torture issue either.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:32:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It could "harm Maine"?

No, I don't think so, because I think the likelihood of him coming out and SAYING that is as likely as me sprouting wings and flying.

His administration made such a flub in how they handled Iowa that NO MENTION of individual states' progress will ever be discussed.  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:55:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What "political capital"?

This is the biggest straw man argument there is. How will Obama expend political capital on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? The repeal enjoys broader support than Obama does himself, (65 percent approval for Obama versus 69 percent in favor of repeal). Since it is a FACT that Obama, as commander in Chief, could with the stroke of a pen, order the military to not enforce DADT until such a time as Congress gets around it, the "he's only been in office five months" argument is meaningless too. It would take his staff, what, a week? to draft the order and two seconds for him to sign it.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:57:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you'll let us know when the "right" time comes for us to ask for our civil rights?

And, in what year do you think that will be?  Can we get something in writing, so that if the time passes and the President does nothing, we can hold you personally responsible?  If you can't join us in the struggle for equal rights, move out of the way.

---

by: exfundie @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:38:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

nope, I don't have to do it your way

You may not like my way, but that's too bad, so sad for you. The beauty of the First Amendment.

You should stop demanding a statement

No, I don't have to stop demanding one, and that's not incompatible with wanting affordable health care or clean air. Each constituency is standing in line waiting for action. Why should LGBTs sit in silence and be polite and let the other constituencies at the head of the line? That's actually not even true since our relatively small numbers wouldn't rate being at the front of the line anyway.

It also discounts that many LGBTs are not single-issue voters and are among those who want action on health care. The reason I am vocal about LGBT civil rights is precisely because I know progressives will back burner the issue. They have before and will in the future.

And quite frankly, your continued apologist position for Obama is so reliable in these threads is weak and boring, but knock yourself out; you're not changing many minds at all on this front.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:50:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think is goes back to that whole...

...only white heterosexual males are nuanced and diverse thing Pam. As a gay, African-American woman, obviously your issues serve only your interests. None of us in the LGBT community are capable of thinking about society as a whole apparently.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:59:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice creative editing...

I asked you to stop asking him to make a statement about something that you are well aware that he publically opposes.

The point being that you might actually get your wish and it could do more harm than good. He is opposed to your postion, so why do you want him commenting on it?

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:58:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sweet music worth hearing again...

"...your continued apologist position for Obama is so reliable in these threads"

That's why "drone" means both a "sustained and monotonous sound" and a synonym for robot.

And I'll repeat myself: if the LGBT community was a country these people would be guilty of "treason."

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:39:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could you please provide a link

to even ONE comment here where anyone has argued that LGBT concerns should come FIRST on President Fierce's agenda?  If you can't (and I don't believe you can), you owe Pam and the whole community here an apology.

What Pam and the rest of us have been saying is that we should be SOMEWHERE on his agenda--which isn't happening, as the DOJ's argument in this week's DADT decision makes very clear.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:52:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, according to the "reality based"

Kos commenter:

"For the most part, I think Obama's doing a terrific job."

I wonder what he thinks is so terrific.  Is it the trillions of dollars giveaway to the banks?  The woefully inadequate health care "reform" and abandonment of single payer?  The refusal to hold the previous administration legally accountable on torture, and the continuation of certain violations of the fourth amendment?  

So much for "progressivism" eh?  

---

by: dk @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:37:39 AM CDT

The financial sector bailout doesn't bother me

The abandonment of the manufacturing sector does.

Continuing warrantless wiretapping.

Lack of transparency in government.

I'm certain things are better than they would be under McCain.  But the only way that the Democrats will be progressive on any issue is if they're dragged kicking and screaming.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 14:51:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We ALL knew Obama wasn't progressive, he is at best centrist pragmatic

Progressive blogs imprinted as much on Obama of what they wished he was, as many LGBTs. I never believed Obama was going to champion our Human Rights, the best I hoped for was judges and justices he selected would be FAIR, which after Alito and Roberts would SEEM revolutionary. Progressives like other allies need to recall, we (LGBTs) helped elect the majority in Congress and the White House, and with that came promises to US. Ya gotta know we would expect those promises to be KEPT, which is only reasonable.
When we get shoved aside and told yet again, wait....we also have every reason to be MAD AS HELL, and if that is inconvenient....too bad.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:47:43 AM CDT

Not necessarily, petey

I really did think he was more progressive than he is turning out to be, but then again, I only just awhile found out about the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.

What can I say; been Independant for 25 years... and thinking about cleaning this Democratic stuff off the bottom of my shoe and going BACK on the fence. Easier to sit and throw things at both parties from up there! ;)

Seriously, I think alot of people bought in, because they wanted to. Ole PT Barnum was right.


"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:00:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"rack up some victories," yeah, right

and then it's re-election time. That's the history and the precedent with the Democratic Party.

I do think that we need to spread the "GLBT love" to the Congress, though. But still, it's the President that sets the tone.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:53:39 AM CDT

The Democratic excuse for a long time

is that they need yet MORE votes, MORE money, MORE power, before they can do anything.

That is their excuse on a whole host of issues.

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 03:08:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I find it interesting

That for white straight men of all stripes, a minority person cannot be at all as varied as white straight men. They are a minority and if they talk about evil minority issues then of course they are biased unlike the good white straight man who doesn't at all think they are important, because hey fixing that inequality would decrease the specialness of white straight men.

Especially on the "she's focusing too much" attack. Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart were much more vocal a lot earlier on a lot of this BS, including criticizing the president on this and other issues.

But you know, she's a she and one of "them". So yeah...

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM CDT

Stereotypes abound

And apparently, straight, white men hold a monopoly on nuance and diversity of opinion. I've noticed this as well.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:16:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OUTSTANDING point!

I should have thought of that!

Keith Olbermann has been much more vocal than Rachel Maddow on GLBT issues and has been pretty much non-stop since Prop 8. I wonder if there's any criticism of Olbermann or Stewart for their LGBT views on DailyKos

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:16:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andrew Sullivan in Virtual Normal made a good point years ago

You'll know what the Majority straights value most (marriage and military) because those will be the last they will grant you.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:24:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

a similar thing happend

to some gay journalists in the print media when the massachusetts supreme court ruled that special marriage rights for heterosexuals only was unconstitutional.  the gay journalists were removed from stories because they heterosexual editors, who NEVER could have a (heterosexual) bias, assumed they couldn't handle the story unbiasedly.  such idiots abound, sadly.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:24:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

if I'm remembering history correctly, progressives are shaky allies for LGBTs

Like conservatives, progressives will accept LGBs (not sure about the T) as long as they do not bring up or or organize around issues of sexuality.

Sadly, I think LGBTs may be too individualistic to put aside "pet concerns" to organize in a politically effective/pragmatic fashion.   We can't decide on a strategy because everyone is bringing their baggage to the table.

As far as Obama, he would not be criticized as harshly had he not said "fierce advocate," but I don't think it was realistic to expect him to be emphasizing LGBT issues.  Most openly gay govt officials/politicians don't do that.  

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:38:39 AM CDT

There is a difference between not emphasizing and ignoring

He wouldn't have this kind of criticism if he would ADDRESS  the issues and the campaign statements that he made. He doesn't have to "emphasize" anything but he and his press secretary refuse to acknowledge or respond to questions about LGBT rights.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:46:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is too broad a brush

There are indeed some leftists, I often get into arguments with them, who believe that what they call identity politics, whether LGBT, feminist, or ethic or race based, is a "distraction" by the right, from the "more important" issues, such as class, wealth distribution, the environment.

They are nearly always straight white males; ergo, those issues are a "distraction".

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 03:18:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Progressive?

See, this is continuing evidence to me that the term 'progressive' has just been adopted by many liberals as a re-branding without any change in their approach to their politics. It seems to me that 'progressive' was for a time meaning a truly more progressive - and dare I say 'radical' - approach to social justice issues. Instead it has been co-opted by people who act in the same monolithic, majority-mindset manner liberals and conservatives have always acted.

---

by: aleisha @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53:56 AM CDT

"progressives" are not pleased with Obama

as far as the bailout/stimulus and the torture issue is concerned. And now The Dems seem to be backing down from single-payer health care and "progressives" aren't pleased with that either.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:05:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

'Progressive' is always a poisoned term

Progressives brought prohibition and California's propositions. It's the political version of 'trendy' or 'stylish'.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:44:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One more thing:

Obama went to the SCOTUS the other day and asked them to dismiss a lawsuit dealing with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That goes from ignoring the issue to actively opposing the repeal of the policy. I'd be very much interested in knowing how the Obama apologists explain that betrayal.

I won't hold my breath....

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:08:58 AM CDT

They won't explain it

Pam had an earlier article

SCOTUS rejects DADT challenge with admin approval; Gallup poll shows conservatives approve repeal  
by: Pam Spaulding

And, guess what, not one Obama apologist posted a comment. Surprising, no?

---

by: exfundie @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:47:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unsurprising

They are quite as blindered as the PUMAs they used to so eloquently deride.

---

by: Margaret @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:59:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You, fortunately, just missed them...

They applauded, stamped their feet, whistled, and cheered in many places how it "PROVED" that Obama really does want to get rid of DADT because he prevented the Supremes from ruling that it was valid.

Problem with that is that according to SLDN the peculiarities of this case would have prevented the court from ruling on DADT's constitutionality even if they had heard it. [A fact I initially missed, too.] This case, like several others before it, apparently had been stripped of its constitutionality issues by this time.

I've yet to discover the exact issue here, but, for instance, in the case of the late Perry Watkins, the issue became only that HIS particular discharge was unfair because he'd told the Army he was gay before they enlisted and REenlisted him, then some other superior comes along after he'd served as openly gay for several years and decides "the fag's gotta go." It went back and forth in the courts, until, finally, the Supremes refused to hear the government's appeal of a lower court's order to reinstate him

The O'bots also claim that the administration HAD NO CHOICE; every government law must be defended every time.
SOOOO not true....regardless of the issue. Not only did the government not appeal a ruling in Watkin's favor at an earlier point in his case, but they did not appeal the reinstatement of Keith Meinhold to the Navy AFTER the ban became law.

So, to sum up, given that the administration filed court papers saying the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that DADT is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion," I'm still waiting for an explanation of WHY they CHOSE to do that when

1. the government CAN refuse to take action in ANY court case;

2. this case only involved deciding on this ONE soldier's status NOT the Constitutionality of the law itself, and

3. the administration just agreed with the phony reasons Congress used to pass DADT in the first place. WHAT are they going to say to Congress now to keep Obama's promise to fight for its repeal?

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 13:05:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Progressive"????

From time to time I go to progressive blogs and websites to see how they're handling LGBT issues.  Sometimes they ignore them; sometimes they try to use the issue to further their own agendas; sometimes they seem genuinely on our side.  

Daily Kos and Huffington Post are probably the two most read of these progressive blogs.  Given their founders' personal history, I find it a little suspicious that these two blogs now represent the progressive voice.  Let's see:  Not so long ago, Arianna was the wife and mouthpiece for the Republican CA senate candidate.  Kos (Markos Moulitsas) wrote a pretty homophobic letter about 15 years ago (as a man in the military, he apparently was afraid he'd have to change his underwear in front of a gay man).  More recently, he was in training to be a CIA spy.  Check this site: http://truth-about-kos.blogspo...

I'm not saying that people can't change their opinions - sometimes even make a complete 180.  I hope people are changing their minds!!  And I don't want to attack someone who finally sees the light just for not having seen the light in the first place.

My only point is that we have to look out for ourselves.  We can't let "progressives" do the prioritizing for us or we'll never get anywhere.  There will always be dozens of issues more important to them than our rights.  And as far as that goes, we can't just sit back and let the LGBT elites do our thinking for us.  A lot of times, their own personal agendas do not coincide with our own best interests.  

 

---

by: expedito @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:11:14 PM CDT

Does it matter that much...

what roads Huffington & Moulitsas personally went down to get where they are today?  And if so, would you commit to the idea that either or both of them are only pretending to be progressive on LGBT rights issues?  You can mention their pasts and refrain from drawing conclusions, but I don't find that particularly helpful.

When I do Google searches on LGBT issues, Daily Kos postings often come up.  Marriage equality as an issue, to my eyes, has really burgeoned in recent months on Huff Post.  That's all that matters to me...are the issues being covered and in a fair way?  I believe so, on both sites.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:26:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't speak for Markos but Arianna's story is fascinating

She was married to a wealthy Republican and became a bigtime social netwroker in the Beltway. His heart wasn't in i, and it wandered elsewhere besides.

IOW he came out.

Currently he's going with a soignee youth of considerable charm.

Araina, meanwhile, always wants to be where the action is. Not sooner did she arrive in D.C. than she realized the Pubbies where HOPELESS. This was right in the middle of the Clinton administration, mind you. So che changed sides.

I've met her several times. She's One Smart Cookie. But I wouldn't call her a political "thinker" of any serious sort. She's tons of fun to hang with.

Markos I have yet to meet and I find the Daily Kos a mixed bag. I'm out of sympathy with them to begin with because they're basically wonks who want to elect Democrats to office.

To my way of thinklin gthat marks you as someone who hasn't though poilitics out nearly enough.

And in a wonk atmosphere Teh Ghey becomes a "problem" to be dealt with.

Not taken seriously -- dealt with.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:47:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yep, fear brings out the worst in people

It's not pretty to look at Obama's inaction. Hell, that interview response didn't even make sense. I know plenty of straight dems that feel just like we do. WTF? Kind of reminds me of the President that said, "I agree with you. Now go out there and MAKE me do it.
Right now I will be patient, but vocal. And I will not forget who my friends have been. And I will talk to them and we'll make it out the other side just fine.
One thing that will come out of this for me, and I sit on a statewide endorsement committee, is no more endorsing mediocre candidates.
They are either with us, as shown by their actions, or they get no support. end of story.

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:25:24 PM CDT

That was FDR

I agree with you. Now go out there and MAKE me do it.

That was FDR talking to labor leaders, I believe. And that is our charge.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:28:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ah, FDR

thank you. I'll look much less like an idiot when I bring this up in a speech I'm doing Thursday.

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:34:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, let's make sure you get the quote right

I am finding several different versions of the quote but the sentiment is the same:

that when FDR met with labor leaders in 1934, after four hours of meeting, he said the following: 'You've convinced me that you are right. Now, go out there and force me to do it.'

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:53:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hehehe

TY
same sentiment. Nobody looks this stuff but you an I.
I'll be meeting with my dem. friends Thursday.
Let me be really clear, again.
The Dems stood with us, arm in arm, in our fight to beat amendment 2 here in Florida.
They are not perfect, but actions count.
Best I can see right now is just keep talking.

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:31:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and another thing

This is a gay issue, why?
Let me put this really clearly. If a politician doesn't have the courage to stand up for what is best for all Americans, why do they deserve to serve?
I want someone smart, fair and courageous. Anything else is really a bad option.
Fear is a MoFo.

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:31:01 PM CDT

It's not progressives we have to worry about, it's Democrats.

"Progressive" in American politics meant left centrist. It was the name taken by Plains state radicals afraid of being branded as socialists. Then the Stalinists of the CP-USA began calling themselves progressives as they went on their long trek from Moscow line sectarianism to burying themselves in the Democratic (sic) party. At this point it means nothing in terms of being an alternative to the right centrist politics of Republicans and Democrats.

The problem is not that the Democrats are a big tent (the term big sewer is a bit more accurate) or even that they're controlled by opportunist hustlers like Obama and Barney Frank who'll betray us the drop of a hat. The problem is that the Democrats clearly see themselves as the defenders of the looter rich who control a late stage degenerate capitalist state that sees its salvation in empire building. (What worked for Caesar won't work now. US 'leaders' won a few victories (Panama, Grenada, NAFTA) etc. but most of the time they tried to conquer colonies they've had their ass handed to them on a silver platter - Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and soon in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

The Democrats are a right wing party moving further right. They have no differences with the Republicans in terms of bailing out the looter rich while refusing to bailout homeowners, the unemployed, and social service programs under attack in every state and municipality in the country. They have no differences with the Republicans on empire building and they have no differences in terms of the LGBT equality agenda.  

The real problem is that the Democrats aren't socialists and never will be. People who voted for them wasted their votes. People who advocated voting for them misled.

To protect ourselves and to position ourselves for the growing social radicalization we need to build a militant, action oriented, nationwide, democratically organized inclusive LGBT left. Nothing else is even half as important as that.

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 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:58:19 PM CDT

I've lost my patience and am disgusted.

and I can't really add anything more to this conversation.

---

by: ggw59 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 13:13:55 PM CDT

In the future the mantra will be

Obama only took office 36 months ago, give him a break... he will get to it in the second term.....and if you don't vote for him you will get Justices to the right of Souter...like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Sotomayor

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 13:19:04 PM CDT

And the Hits Just Keep on Coming

If you thought that was bad, there is now a diary called In Defense of Shock Jocks (Rob, Arnie, and Dawn related).

---

by: claudew @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:47:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pam, I don't think there is any more important issue than gay rights, but ...

History tells us that it simply doesn't work for a president to make a prominent gay-related issue one of the first issues he takes on.  

Take, for example the first Clinton Administration.  No sooner had Bill Clinton tried to end discrimination against gays in the military by executive order than the US Congress overruled him and gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  Don't ask don't tell has been about as gay friendly as and effective as saying to Black people, "We won't discriminate against Black people as long you don't show us that you're Black and we can't figure it out for ourselves."

Now, what would happen to Barack Obama if he took on DOMA today?  Americans would rightly conclude that DOMA was a higher priority for him that saving the US banking system, GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy, chaos and implosion.  And if only for the reason that the majority had concluded that Obama's priorities were not in the right place, the majority would come to distrust Obama and oppose EVERY progressive thing he wants to do.

Now, can anyone believe that there was a higher priority for Hillary Clinton in 1993 than health care.  She took it on right away and within one year universal health care  was dead as a poisoned dog for the next fifteen years (except for CHIPS for children).

You think the pseudo-progressives are on your side on this?  Don't count on it!  Look what "Markos C. A. Moulitsas" had to say about gays in the military on January 25, 1993, essentially days after President Clinton was first inaugurated.  This is a "Perspective Letter" he published in his college newspaper:

"
Perspective_letters
Published on Monday, January 25, 1993

Military Right

It's truly disturbing how much ado has been made over Bill Clinton's campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals from the U.S. military. It's ironic how it has taken a president who has never served in the military to make a promise that affects the military in such a negative manner.

Those who have served in the military, such as myself, understand the demands and pressures of military life are incompatible with allowing integration with homosexuals. I'm neither socially conservative or prejudiced, and neither is liberal columnist Mike Royko, Gen. Colin Powell, and influential liberal Democrats Sam Nunn and Les Aspin, all who've come out against lifting the ban.

Under military circumstances, as much has to be done as possible to focus the unit's mission and keep disciplinary problems to a minimum. Worrying about whether the known homosexual sleeping next to you is watching as you change your underwear may seem trivial as you read this, but to the soldier who's short-tempered after three weeks in the field and four hours of daily sleep, it becomes a matter of great importance to his pride and sensibilities. And in any case, there aren't many people who would change clothes in a group of co-workers if members of the opposite sex were in the same room watching. There is something inherently uncomfortable about it.

Such fears would go a long way in disrupting efficiency and morale in a unit.

MARKOS C.A. MOULITSAS

Undecided

Freshman

OK, so there are those who want to believe that this letter was written long ago and that Moulitsas Zúñiga has changed his tune.  Do you also want to believe that EVERYONE who had crap like this to say back then has changed their tune?  

What about Colin Powell?  Is he going to stand up against gay rights again as he did against Clinton in 1993?  Has anyone checked to see if he and his fellow military people have changed their tune?

What about Obama's new Republican Army Secretary?  Is that Republican guy going to support the Congressional act that would be necessary to get ride of DADT?

What about all of the Black ministers who will condemn Obama if he sides with gays on anything major?  What about the Republicans and Blue Dogged Democrats in the US Congress who, taken together, form a solid majority?

In all likelihood, putting Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the US Supreme Court will turn out to be one of the most significant things Obama has done for gay people in his terms in office.  If you disagree, then just imagine what you would be saying if he had chosen someone who was AGAINST gay rights!  Who's more important?  A minister at the innauguration or a Justice of the US Supreme Court?

Choosing Sonia Sotomayor is a fundamental act of fairness for gays, and it's perhaps the most important thing he's done since he was inaugurated.

I guarantee you that if Obama takes on DADT and DOMA when the unemployment rate is at 9.'% and rising then he will be either ridden out on rail in 2012, or the Democrats will lose the US Congress like they did in 1994, and then Obama will be forced to sign idiot laws like DOMA, just as Clinton did back in his terms of office.

Patience is a virtue in chess an in politics.  My father used to say, "Strike (the iron) when the iron is hot!"  The corollary is that if you strike the iron when it's not hot, then you can't make a dent in it and you might even break the rest of your tools in the process of trying.

I'm telling you like I see it.  Wait until the recession is over and the unemployment rate has gone down (there are some gays out of work too, and they need the economy to improve as much as anyone else, right?)  Wait until we have universal health care and gay people with AIDS can get the treatment they need.

THEN, we can attack DADT and DOMA, when Obama is riding high as a successful president rather than proving himself, and perhaps proving (depending on what he does) that he doesn't know what he's doing.

---

by: francislholland @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 17:34:33 PM CDT

You know

I had a really great comment running in my head, but you know, it's kinda like beating a dead horse.

Very few, if any of the commenters here have been screaming for the current administration to put GLBT issues FIRST.  You folks that are fiercely defending Pres. Obama seem to miss that point.

All we're asking for, from my perspective, is for Pres. Obama to at least acknowledge that he's aware of our issues, and at least formulating some kind of strategy.  Or even, as much as I'd hate to see him do it, just come out and say "Hey, not gonna happen, we're not working on it, sit down, and shut up."

This conversation lately has devolved into something pointless, and I, for one, am done talking about it.

---

by: sfalken @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 17:52:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hot iron...

There's no hotter iron right now in terms of Obama's oft-repeated promises when he was trying to seduce our votes than his legal power to freeze DADT discharges [roughly  240 since his swearing in] until Congress can be persuaded to repeal. "You don't bring us flowers anymore...."

Sorry if the Transparent Phony hat fits, but wear it. You are one of those who like to pretend we all just woke up on January 21st and thought, "Hmm, ya know, I don't remember hearing about any LGBT issues from him during the campaign. Let's throw some together and gang up on the guy."

Pam's characterization is so perfect it's time we replaced our old Obama t-shirts with a new one that reads:

HE'S CAUGHT IN A TRAP HE BUILT HIMSELF!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 18:25:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This ain't 1993.

In 1993, the country was still in a rightward swing and Clinton had just won with a plurality in a weird three-way race.

In 2009, the country has had it with the GOP, the Democratic party has a huge majority in the House and 59 (soon to be 60) votes in the Senate.  

I don't think the events of 1993 need bind us in 2009.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 19:00:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

huh

All this time, i thought markos was gay.
guess not?

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 22:05:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gay people in private are some of the most homophobic in public.

I think there's a strong chance that Markos Moulitsas is a lot like Senator Larry Craig.  He's married because it is a requirement for moving up in politics and for not being suspected of being gay.  And that cover allows him to engage in the acts that the REALLY likes when no one else is around to photograph is "wide stance".

The absurdity of the above letter alone is enough to make one wonder about Moulitsas Zúñiga's sexual issues, whatever the are.

The commenter above is right that this is not 1993, we're not in a right-ward swing overall, 1/3 of Republicans think the Republican Party stinks . . .  But Clinton had just been elected when the country turned against him and Republicans convinced the voters that Clinton was too far left of the mainstream.  Let's not overplay our hand.  

I don't think Obama can undo DADT with an executive order, since the statute very purposefully tied Bill Clinton's hands back in 1993.  If the issue came before a court, the legislative history would be clear that DADT was the best deal that Clinton could get, and any liberalization of the enforcement would be contrary to Congressional intent.

With voters in California voting down gay marriage, is this really the time for a national referendum on gays in the military?

If 1,000 gay people in the military come out at once, then Obama will be compelled by the need for soldiers to go back to Congress and ask for a statute that keeps in mind the thousands of soldiers are on the second and third terms of duty.  Throwing gays out of the military just means that straight people have to do extra terms, and convicted criminals have to be admitted to the military to replace the gays who have been thrown out.

Obama should propose to Congress that HE gets to choose whether to recruit convicted criminals or keep the upstanding gays the services already have.

As for DailyKos, why don't we just assume that it is run by the CIA, since its founder spent two years training at the CIA simultaneous with starting the blog.  (Listen to him say so, in this audio tape, in his own words, and with his own unmistakably geeky Salvadoran oligarchy spoiled rich kid voice!) Listen to him say that he went into CIA training because he was "unemployed, underemployed".  If so, then can't we assume that the CIA provided him money that helped him in his "unemployed, underemployed" state?

Why would someone who is "unemployed, underemployed" work for free and who would support such a person for two years unless it was a rich family (he says he came from a poor family and he was single at the time, so he wasn't relying on a spouse), so he MUST have gotten money from the CIA when he was "unemployed, underemployed" and at the VERY SAME TIME he was starting DailyKos.  SO, let's just assume that DailyKos is a front for the CIA's efforts to control the Left's thinking and keep our minds going around in familiar circles.

Let's just assume he's CIA the way we assume that those little animal that hatched from chicken eggs are . . . chickens!  And the politicians hatched in the nations spy agency are political spies.

Look at these screenshots from Moulitsas' wedding party at their "family hotel", as posted in Moulitsas online wedding album, and then compare these photos to Moulitsas' statement that his family in El Salvador was "not wealthy or influential," and then consider the fact that the beachside cabana's you're looking at are owned, seaside, by Moulitsas Zúñiga's own family, in the Miami Beach of El Salvador!  Their own family website says so!  They say the resort is "exclusive"!

His family is filthy rich!  This guy is a F******* LIAR with a very elaborate cover story that includes the publication of his pseudo "progressive" blog.  

EVERYTHING he says and does has to be understood from that perspective.

Disagree?  Then tell me the name of ONE member of Moulitsas Zúñiga's blood family, based on ONE instance in which Zúñiga has named a family member.  Don't waste your time looking.  He NEVER has.  

I have discovered who a few of them are by looking at Salvadoran business incorporation records for the "family business", and then cross checking the ZÚÑIGA family members to see what else they're involved in.  You would NEVER, EVER believe it unless you had read it for youselves in Salvadoran Government records and US Government press releases that they never imagined anyone would take the time to research and publish.  OPIC Cites One Million Dollar CAFTA Promotion Grant For "Manager" of Moulitsas' "Family Business."

Why are Markos Moulitsas' family members getting ONE MILLION DOLLAR loan gaurantees from the US Government to promote the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other globalization projects?!  Why has he lied and told us his family is "not wealthy or influential"?  

This smells like a truckload rotting fish!

---

by: francislholland @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 00:36:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why does Obama have a Republican army secretary?

He and the Dems won the elections comfortably. Bush when he left was one of the most unpopular presidents ever. It wasn't as if Obama just barely squeaked into office, with the Senate and the House controlled by the Repubs.

And how is Sonia Sotomayor such a great fundamental act of fairness?

What about the Republicans and Blue Dogged Democrats in the US Congress who, taken together, form a solid majority?

Show me your numbers that indicate a solid majority. How many seats do the Repubs + Blue Dogs control in the Senate? How many in the House?

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 04:06:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you

for being rational about these issues. For some reason folks here would rather have a political martyr than a quiet advocate.

What's even more bizzare is that people keep demanding that things get done NOW otherwise Obama has gone back on his promises. They completely dismiss the idea that the President and Congress might just want to get the bigger issues passed first.

You know, its odd that we elected a President for a term of 4 years yet people complain that he has not immediately addressed all the issues on his agenda in his first few months in office. MONTHS...and not an uneventful few months at that. Apparently some people got the message that Obama planned to address ALL of the issues on his agenda all at once. He apparently does not have the right to prioritize his agenda.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:39:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course Obama is going to prioritize

but (why do I think this is going to fall on deaf ears?)  it seems as if GLBT issues only come up as a priority around election time.

And very, very rarely in a positive way, whether it's a Democrat or Republican. So why do the concerns of the GLBT community keep being pushed to the back?

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:46:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the current environment

is hardly the usual situation. This administration came in with an extraordiary number of problems to fix that it had no part in making. You would think that the need to address those critical issues would earn them some time. On top of that, they know that they have the unique oppotunity to make some sweeping changes in areas where the Democrats had been in full retreat for years. It should be understandable that they'd want to put the maximum amount of political capital on those issues as well. The point being that all things being equal, the LGBT community had no reason to expect that Obama would jump on these issues right away, given everything else that he has to focus on now. Its hardly unreasonable to be asked to wait.

Its important to remember that on issues like DADT, the President has NOT backed down on his support for the repeal. He even took the time to write a personal letter to that effect to one of the soldiers that wrote to him. He did not have to do that. He could have blown it off. But he didn't.

The point being that being asked to wait does not automatically mean being asked to wait forever. This administration has proven to be anything but impulsive. They try to take the long view of issues. You'd think that if people can be patient with them working on the economy, health care, the wars and the mess that was our foreign policy, oil dependence, immigration reform etc...that they would show some patience on LGBT issues.

Its this need to turn anyone that advocates for patience into an enemy that I find really distressing. Its perfectly reasonable to strategise and make plans for pressuring the administration. What is NOT ok is declaring someone an enemy or an obstacle just because they don't work on your timetable.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 14:51:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Go slow means don't go"

I remember that line from a James Baldwin essay on William Faulkner, I believe.

In the meantime, Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth conflating religious belief with civil equality for gay and lesbian Americans. I repeat, by doing so he is giving license to religious right flail away at their homobigotry. Especially black homobigots (yeah I said it.

At the hearing in DC on whether there is going to be a referendum placed on the ballot regarding same-sex marriage one of the black homobigots actually said this:

Leroy Swailes, an Oxon Hill, Md., resident who said he considers himself to be part of the D.C. community, acknowledged that banning same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination, but added that "discrimination against homosexuals is positive discrimination."

And it is being said because Obama specifically courted these homophobic votes.

And, of course the man's statement is non-sensical but since when did bigotry ever make any sense?  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 15:06:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not even so much that he's prioritizing

It's that when he had to put effort into an issue of importance to the GLBT community, he put in effort to stop it.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 15:08:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My sentiments, exactly

Thanks for this. You really sum it up. This story was on Huffington Post a few days ago. All the hypocritical get-to- the-back-of-the-bus sentiments that you describe were there, complete with vitriol against Maddow herself. I spent the whole evening countering them. It's been a long time since I felt so disgusted and angered by fellow Democrats. I know this attitude of shut up, gays, we'll get to your issues later (and don't you guys ever think about anything else but your not-so-important-in-the-scheme-of things rights?) was common in years past but I had hoped we'd moved beyond it. Maybe not.

---

by: Dieter @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:13:09 AM CDT

Obamalamadingdongs

Whle I agree that so-called progressives are throwing LGBT folks under the bus, the Obamalamadingdongs are throwing everything progressive under the bus with the "he's only been in office ______"(please fill in the blank) trope.

I posted all the things he's actually done already:
* attempting to legitimize preventive detention

* trying to create a "justice" system that would allow prisoners to be tried in a venue based on where they would be most likely convicted

* expanding the war in Afghanistan; giving away the treasury to the largest corporations, and the ones most responsible for creating the economic disaster we are now experiencing

* creating an Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives headed by a person who is not only morally opposed to abortion, but to contraception as well

* hiding the actions of the government on the basis of embarrassment-actions which are fully known to our currently defined enemies, because they are being victimized by them, but which would allegedly inflame them more (?!) if they saw pictures or read words about them-hiding actions by making it legal to do whatever the leader wants (whoever that person is) with no oversight from anyone

* killing civilians all over Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and then repeatedly claiming to have killed "insurgents" until forced to admit by indisputable evidence that YES, those were civilians

* Defending bonuses for the wealthy banksters while demanding concessions from middle class auto workers, and allowing the auto companies to move their jobs to Mexico and elsewhere

I received the following comment:
"I want what I want and I want it right now!!
...
You drop a man into the morass of American & World politics, carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders; up to his eyebrows in deep, deep doo-doo that has been building up for decades, and now you expect him to run the 4 minute mile?"

And, of course, defending the indefensible DOMA and DADT.

I blog at Open Salon (http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom) and I constantly run into it:
I wrote Obama Defends "Defense of Marriage Act" and one comment was:
"I don't see anything that says "President Obama" in your post." As though the brief was created without Obama having a clue.

I changed the title: Obama's Minions Defend "Defense of Marriage Act"

There are, on the other hand, many straight progressives there who are pushing all the right things. And we're answering the bozos who are still waiting for Obama to do the right thing.

Keep fighting the fight,Pam. We're with you.

Bill

---

by: michtom @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 00:57:07 AM CDT