News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile

Access 11/5 Senate ENDA Hearing Live Blog

Access Tuesday's Election Live Blog

33|175:175
About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism

Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...


The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)

Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008


Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)

Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.

SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend

An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.

Former Clinton aide Socarides: Obama's Department of Justice had a choice

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 14:45:00 PM EDT


OK, DOMA defenders, eat this. Former top aide to President Clinton, Richard Socarides (who is openly gay), worked alongside the former President in the Oval Office and as a Hill staffer. He recently penned an op-ed in the WaPo,  Where's our "Fierce Advocate? (I blogged that here). He has an essay up at Americablog today about whether the Obama administration had to file that DOMA brief. On the brief he says:
It had such a buckshot approach to it, a veritable kitchen sink of anti-gay legal theories, that it seemed expressly designed to inflict maximal damage to our rights. Instead of making nuanced arguments which took into account the president's oft-stated support for repealing DOMA - a law he has called "abhorrent" - the brief seemed to embrace DOMA and all its horrific consequences.

I was equally troubled by the administration's explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

...[T]he general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative - like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief's invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration's lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff's had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.

The question I have for the Obama administration is why the bleep are you so timid across the board about LGBT rights? Politically, all you have to do is pick up the paper for justification to strike while the iron is hot. The other party is in disarray and in decline. Today's WaPo: For Republicans, the Forces Aren't With Them.
The American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution convened a stellar cast on Friday to review what has been learned since November. The panel included Robert Lang of Virginia Tech; Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress; William Frey of the Brookings Institution; Bill Bishop, a Texas writer and author of "The Big Sort"; Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center; and Ronald Brownstein of Atlantic Media. They presented a wealth of data about what happened in 2008 and offered conclusions that would alarm any Republican hopeful of a quick turnaround in the party's fortunes.

...Democratic strength in the counties around Philadelphia, around Detroit and in Northern Virginia have squeezed Republicans dramatically. Increasingly, Republican strength outside the urban areas counts for less. "There's just not enough rural folks and small-city people left in America in the key states that determine the electoral college to offset that difference," Lang said. "You're out of people."

That's one geographical reality. The other, which became acute in 2008, is that outside the South, Republicans are in trouble. McCain won the South in November, but Obama swept the rest of the country by an even bigger margin. The same pattern holds now for House and Senate seats. Republicans may continue to win governorships in Democratic-leaning states, but in congressional and presidential elections the geographic divides are sizable.

Brownstein reeled off a list of statistics that all arrived at the same place: The South now accounts for a greater share of Republican strength than at virtually any time since the party's founding. That base is too narrow, as even Republicans know.

Demographically, the forces at work have chipped away at what was once a GOP-leaning majority in the country. The most important is minorities' rising share of the vote. Whites accounted for 76 percent of the overall electorate last November, down from 85 percent in 1988.

...Republicans can't reverse the demographic trends; their only solution is to increase their share of the minority vote.

You have to read the whole thing. As long as the GOP is led by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and state mouthpieces like bigot of the day Rusty DePass, and catering to the McCain/Palin mobs we saw during 2008, that party is going to be bringing up the rear.

There is no earthly reason for the Obama administration's silence (and now with the DOMA brief contempt) on our issues, to have its tail between its legs. It only cements the belief, after the Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren debacles, that all you wanted out of the LGBT community were votes, dollars and bodies to volunteer to usher him into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; a lame proclamation about gay rights doesn't erase the embarrassing behavior of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the daily pressers, dodging, evading and delivering nonsensical contradictory answers to serious questions posed by reporters about LGBT issues such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Who's holding this administration hostage to PTSD fears of Clinton and DADT in 1993? It's 2009, toadies. This administration, sitting atop high approval ratings with a minority party choking on its own bile and an American public that is more supportive of LGBT issues in the polls that at any time in history is crapping on the community in broad daylight and wondering what all the fuss is about. Someone in the White House needs a reality check. Fast.  

Related:
* GroupNewsBlog: Who Obama Picks To Keep Doing Bush's Work For Him
* Arthur Leonard at Gay City News: Obama Administration Versus Candidate Obama
Pam Spaulding :: Former Clinton aide Socarides: Obama's Department of Justice had a choice
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Former Clinton aide Socarides: Obama's Department of Justice had a choice | 126 comments
What I don't get
The Repubs have been digging their own hole since the election. The sheer magnitude of their racism, economic failures, and their inability to offer any alternatives alone would prevent, for example, Dem voters with socially conservative values to switch.

So even if Obama and the Democrats wanted to take an incremental approach, that could also give them time to educate much of their homophobic base as opposed to trying to court McCain/Palin voters (which they aren't going to get too many of anyway).

And if that was the "secret plan," then why this brief?

Or...
He's an out-and-out liar and a fraud that's just not that into us.
[ Parent ]
Hmm
"The question I have for the Obama administration is why the bleep are you so timid across the board about LGBT rights?"

Ever occur to you that Obama thinks homosexuality is a sin?

He makes jokes
about us.  Male bonding in the locker room of the NFL and NBA.  But what kind of picture do we offer them at Gay Pride D.C.?
shirtless "Blow Buddies" events (all you can drink beer) and sequins and feathered wigstock showgirls ?  Sorry folks, not trying to flame the board here, but let's face it.  Until we get down to business such as what the Dallas Principles lays out, they won't take us seriously.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.
[ Parent ]
I can't help but read that as
"Gender conformity, people!  Keep the femme guys and butch women where the social conservatives won't see them."  Too often, "down to business" means acceptance of the whole corporate-conservative lifestyle as something to be aspired to.
[ Parent ]
BRAVA, PAM!
Who wants to speculate about the influence of Rahm Emmanuel on these matters?
Rahm may be a factor,
but the ultimate responsibility is Obama's.  He sets policy for this administration, not his chief of staff.  Unless, that is, you want to argue that he is completely oblivious to what his administration is doing and takes no responsibility for it--which is equally damning, if not more so.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

[ Parent ]
No kidding.
We spent eight years with a president who apparently didn't know what was going on in his presidency. NO ONE voted to keep that up.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!
[ Parent ]
bingo.
[ Parent ]
I know how Sister Souljah felt
Maybe some queer in this administration should point out a calendar to this administration, you have about 10 days until our tribe will be gathered by the MILLIONS in nearly every major city celebrating the 40th anniversary of a 3 day RIOT....just saying.

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


~Heather Small
Another riot is exactly what we need.
Obama is baiting us.  Calling us out on whether we deserve equality.  Civil rights are not conceded, they are fought for.
[ Parent ]
too bad we aren't ALL gathered in Salt Lake City
The Mormon mothership deserves our "special" attention

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


~Heather Small
[ Parent ]
"A riot is the language of the unheard".
It's a MLK quote but made more famous by Gwendolyn Brooks use of the saying in her poem "Riot"

Riot

A riot is the language of the unheard.
-martin luther king
by Gwendolyn Brooks

John Cabot, out of Wilma, once a Wycliffe,
all whitebluerose below his golden hair,
wrapped richly in right linen and right wool,
almost forgot his Jaguar and Lake Bluff;
almost forgot Grandtully (which is The
Best Thing That Ever Happened To Scotch); almost
forgot the sculpture at the Richard Gray
and Distelheim; the kidney pie at Maxim's,
the Grenadine de Boeuf at Maison Henri.

Because the Negroes were coming down the street.

Because the Poor were sweaty and unpretty
(not like Two Dainty Negroes in Winnetka)
and they were coming toward him in rough ranks.
In seas. In windsweep. They were black and loud.
And not detainable. And not discreet.

Gross. Gross. "Que tu es grossier!" John Cabot
itched instantly beneath the nourished white
that told his story of glory to the World.
"Don't let It touch me! the blackness! Lord!" he whispered
to any handy angel in the sky.
But, in a thrilling announcement, on It drove
and breathed on him: and touched him. In that breath
the fume of pig foot, chitterling and cheap chili,
malign, mocked John. And, in terrific touch, old
averted doubt jerked forward decently,
cried, "Cabot! John! You are a desperate man,
and the desperate die expensively today."

John Cabot went down in the smoke and fire
and broken glass and blood, and he cried "Lord!
Forgive these nigguhs that know not what they do."
Reprinted by consent of Brooks Permissions.

Source: Riot (Broadside Press, 1969)

 
[ Parent ]
Simple Civil Disobedience on a Grand Scale
will do the same.
No permits
Gather, obstruct, and melt away, over and over again...
That can bring any major city to a halt.

We did it for a few hours in Madrid during the coup attempt to create a gridlock to prevent army re-enfocements from arriving and it worked, along with barricdes.

We can skip the barricades.

They cannot arrest us if we keep melting away and re-forming...

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

[ Parent ]
Obama is a straight male christian
Do we really need to delve any deeper?

I didn't think so, either.

It's a waste of time for us to be supporting Dems as a party. They're centrist corporate whores more interested in getting votes than advancing progress for the downtrodden in America. That's why Obama is maintaining two wars, the reason he voted to continue warrantless wiretapping back in July, why he's refusing to obey a court order to release torture photos under the FOIA laws, refusing to consider single-payer healthcare, and refusing to extend a hand to protect the most vulnerable within our ranks. His religion is the reason he's tied LGBT people to the bus bumper and dragged us along while his buddies throw garbage at us, and the reason women and girls will suffer thanks to a hard-line Catholic woman-hater in the top seat of the Office of State-Endorsed Christianity at HHS. He's not a Rethug, he's just your typical will-fake-it-for-votes Dem.

I'm re-registering to vote when I move in a few weeks, and I'm registering as unaffiliated. The Dems aren't getting my money, and they're not getting my name to count among their numbers. And the next time they call me for money, I'm going to tell them to kiss this dyke's ass.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

Exactly...
The DLC's whole raison d'etre has been to marginalize liberals and destroy their influence on the Democratic Party.  Clinton was their first big win and he went about securing their pro-corporate, anti-minority, anti-poor agenda quite successfully.  
[ Parent ]
Bill as Satan Myth Lives On
Though one could guess what lunatic fringe sources you depend upon for your distortions of history, one need only look to Clinton's end-of-presidency job approval ratings to blow a huge reality hole in your claim that he "secur[ed] [an]...anti-minority, anti-poor agenda quite successfully."

Certainly there are other minorities than African-Americans and not all African-Americans are poor, but the fact that 90% of African-Americans approved of his performance as President, and his average rating among all Americans was 65% "the best end-of-career rating of ANY postwar president," your promotion of the myth that he was the AntiChrist is ludicrous.

Or are you saying that blacks were just too stupid to know any better?

[ Parent ]
Please...
Clinton himself said he wanted to bring the Democratic party to the right and in line with corporate interests.  He's responsible for or contributed to NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA, DADT, massive deregulation, media consolidation, privatization of previous government functions, death penalty expansion, expansion of the drug war, expansion of the prison-industrial complex, a widening of the income gap, an illegal rendition program, the continuation of punitive sanctions on Iraq (including the embargo against humanitarian supplies) that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, etc.  The effects of some of these acts weren't felt until after he left office, but they are very real: an increase in uninsured Americans, an increase in Americans below the poverty line, the displacement of workers in third world countries and the collapse of several third world economies, the narrowing in the available spectrum of political opinion, the continued destabilization of poor/minority communities, the destabilization of our economy, etc.  

I don't think MOST Americans have any idea what the long term effects of his policies are.  Race has nothing to do with it.    

[ Parent ]
By the way...
You should look at Bush's approval ratings just as he was about to lead us into two illegal wars before you start claiming that approval ratings mean bupkiss.
[ Parent ]
So MOST Americans are stupid
So, per Comrade Mel, most Americans are stupid, it's just that the blacks [90% approval rating] are more stupid than the whites [59% approval rating].

Classic lunatic left elitism, from which direction you draw your list of sins.

Kind of you to leave out that he, or was it Mrs. Satan, had Vince Foster killed.

[ Parent ]
but on the other hand, they wear a ring
A poll, and that includes approval ratings, can go up and down quicker than (fill in the starlet)'s pantaloons. I would hope that it wouldn't be a basis for policy.

Also depends on how the pollster asks. "Would you still vote for Millard Fillmore if I told you he was accused of simony?"

As for Vincent Foster, my theory is that John Wilkes Booth had something to do with it. See, if you draw a line from the White House, to Rock Creek Park, to the Watergate Hotel, and then up to National Airport, you get a diagram!

EVITA: Your act hasn't changed much.
MAGALDI: Neither has yours.

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry...
You seem to think ridiculous ad hominem attacks that assume I'm from some elite background actually help your case.  Here's the reality.  I grew up and was extremely poor during the Clinton admin.  I'm biracial.  I'm Jewish.  I'm gay.  After putting myself through college and grad school, I'm just barely lower middle class even now.  

I'm not saying that most Americans are stupid.  There's a difference between not knowing the long term effects of certain policies, especially when those effects took place long after someone left office, and being stupid.

Instead of attacking it as "lunatic left elitism," why don't you try finding one place where I was wrong. But the facts aren't on your side, are they?  

[ Parent ]
Christ of the Andes!
You don't even know what "elitist" means! You think it automatically connotes higher financial status? There are tons of blue collar elitist, hipper than thou bores, most of whom could rattle off your string of arm chair neo-socialist bumper sticker buzz words.

Green tea, lentils, and tofu in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6.....

[ Parent ]
Again...
Why don't you try finding one place where I was wrong.  But the facts aren't on your side, are they?

And I'm more than aware of what elitist means and it has multiple definitions.  I responded to one of them, the one most often implied when one mentions "lunatic left elitism."  Knowing that most Americans don't follow policy issues, which is a provable fact, is not elitist by any definition.  

[ Parent ]
I don't piss in the ocean expecting to stop the waves either
I learned a long time ago...like 40 years ago with my first encounter with SWPbots....not to waste my time trying to talk "points" with your kind whose echolalia and tape loop for brains I can smell all the way from here.

I don't care how gay you are or how many crosses you've carried...you've hardwired into an ideologue.

This homo homey don't play that game.

[ Parent ]
Let's See...
One person has facts and actual knowledge of the development of DLC and New Democrat policies.  The other has juvenile name-calling and... what again?  I think everyone can see which side of this debate the brains are on.
[ Parent ]
Is that what they call SWP propaganda now
"facts and actual knowledge"?

Please pass the vegan hush puppies.....

[ Parent ]
Haven't you noticed that anytime anyone at all disagrees with Bedwell,
his response is unfailingly puerile ad hominem attacks?  But give him a break.  It must be awful to be as intellectually empty as he is.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

[ Parent ]
Stop Q
...you're breaking my heart.
[ Parent ]
No, dear, Blacks are more homophobic than whites
I've lived with that fact for the better part of my 62 years as a black gay man.  
[ Parent ]
I don't know...
I've dated black women.  They didn't seem that homophobic to me.  haha

I personally think African-Americans are simply more honest about their homophobia, though there may be some difference in the rates.  I've met a whole lot of straight white people who claimed to be gay friendly (one even wrote a health column for a gay publication) until I casually mentioned a girlfriend or ex-girlfriend in a completely normal way and they got their panties all in a bunch about my advertising my sexuality.  (I'm not an explicit person.  We're talking about comments like "Oh.  You work at X?  My ex-girlfriend worked there.")  Gay friendliness like color blindness is just something too many straight white people claim to have to make themselves feel good.

[ Parent ]
Heh-1 correction here, Keori
You really believe that Obama is a Christianist?

Please, he's always talked a good game in that regard. Very unconvincing to me, though.

[ Parent ]
Semantics, Kev
Do I believe he's a Christianist as in a Dominionist type who wants to overthrow Democracy for a stone-age version of The Handmaid's Tale? No, and oh boy, I hope not.

Do I believe he's a straight male reasonable-facsimile of a christian with all the privilege that goes along with it, including the position of hating queers by default?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

I don't give a shit which denomination he claims to affiliate with. His words and actions tell us whether he hates LGBT people or not, not his affiliation. And his words and actions have been pretty damn clear since the primaries.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

[ Parent ]
But you know what?
There more of "them" then "us."

And as I pointed out before, "they" are legally protected. So what now?

[ Parent ]
Early Warning #14
While the structure of the remarkable United Church of Christ permits local congregations to relatively pick and choose which of the denominational hierarchy's official positions they subscribe to, and his former congregation had not formally aligned itself with the UCC's support of MARRIAGE equality, the fact that Obama himself so ACTIVELY dissented and decorated it with a great big Jesus Bow, was not a good sign.

I'm not ready to conclude he "hates" gays, but I think there were other warning signs that there is much more discomfort and disassociation typical of many straight black males than he wanted us to believe.

CUE TAPE: Howard University primary debate; "'Tavis! Travis! I just got to make clear, I got tested [for HIV] with Michelle.... I don't want any confusion here about what's going on', said Obama, as the audience laughed and applauded. 'I was tested with my wife, in public'."  

[ Parent ]
Ok Michael, he's President, WE WERE DUPED!
Now what?

I don't know, maybe my 12 Step work is starting to kick in now (almost 13 years dry now!). That is, I give myself a couple of days (maybe 3 or 4 days if I'm really pissed) to spew all sorts of stuff (justified and unjustified) then it blows over and I do what I can do.

Demonizing Obama is not going to un-make him being President.  

[ Parent ]
:- )
Congrats on the 12+ years.

Me? I'm tempted to go cold turkey on hope [that I'd see real change before I died]....except for it, at least, not getting any worse for us.

I've been a second class citizen longer than he's been alive. What's a few more years?

Suggestions, however skeptical, below.

[ Parent ]
My sugegstion is radicalise and democracise the movement
Social Bolshevism, if you will

We all lead, we all cntribute and we dare to reclaim our radicalism that the "good gays" began trying to extinguish the day after Stonewall.

Lobbying has not worked.

Begging has not worked.

we have nothing left but radical civil diobedience.
And that suggestion will be denounced on most of the gay blogs as too dangerous and likely to offend our friends.

Guess what?
We have very few political friends.
And our real friends will understand.

We will be told by ourself-appointed leaders that this will provide fodder for the Right

Guess what?
The Right lies anyways. Heckling a Prop 8 supporter is 'violence' while shooting a gynecologist is not, in their lexicon.

But do we have the desire the determination to do this?

I once opined that only closing the bars and clubs and outlawing techno-remix would fire the community up enough to embrace radical civil disobedience again.

Plese prove that statement wrong.

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

[ Parent ]
Maura, I love this!
What friends? All I really know is that we ("the GLBT community") have each other.

And we don't have each other all of the time.

[ Parent ]
But if we listen to each other rather than our self appointed "betters"
we will have a cohesive movement, Kevin.

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
[ Parent ]
Pretending Obama is not a lying sack of shit
is not going to help, kevinchi.
[ Parent ]
Who's pretending?
It is what it is. Now is it all demonization 24/7/365 or do we ("the gay community") doing something about it? Or do we just continue to call him a "lying sack of shit" and do nothing?
[ Parent ]
Not to flame you David
but what makes you think I'm in denial about that?

Hell, the acronym "HNIC" has been floating through my mind all day.

Again, it is what it is.

[ Parent ]
Yo

[ Parent ]
LOL!

[ Parent ]
Support left dems who support us
no more voting for Obama "becuse Kucinich/Gravel" cannot win"

If they want our support, they have to deliver.
But we have a track record of not supporting our supporters and the DNC has grown cocky.

When we actually vote our interests, they will finally deal...

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

[ Parent ]
I don't know Maura..
Hate to sound extremely jaded, but I'm not even sure I have much reason to trust ANY candidate no matter how much they profess their allegiance to us.

Its not that they cant win...i just don't think any of them really mean what they say.

[ Parent ]
It's what we have, Patrick
and it's leverage....

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
[ Parent ]
hmm.
Ok, facts from florida.
we have dems that show their support through action. Sponsoring and co sponsoring bills. We also have dems that showed up and fought arm in arm with us in our efforts to beat amendment #2. That being said, we need to talk to the dems. If they are with us, we should know by their actions. If the are on the fence, no money, no support, no way.
i see no benefit to loosing the friends we have.

http://EQFL.org
[ Parent ]
Obama may be a Christian
"Obama is a straight male Christian."  Yes, but the church he belongs to is the UCC which supports marriage equality (at least at the national level).

The better way to get him to hear us may be to reach out to Michelle.

Just a thought...

[ Parent ]
UCC cowardice
A couple of years ago I asked a fairly highly placed official in the UCC when they were going to file a first amendment suit claiming religious discrimination because the government won't recognize the same-sex marriages they perform.  (The UCC in Canada filed such a suit, and it led directly to gay marriage being legalized in that country.)  I thought the guy was going to have a heart attack.  He coughed uncontrollably, turned pale and ran away from me without ever giving me an answer.

The UCC, like the other so-called "affirming" churches, talks a good game.  But when push comes to shove, they are always somewhere else.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

[ Parent ]
it's their free exercise of religion, hobbled
I've been pushing that myself, that if they can't pronounce a marriage according to their own canons, they, more than us, are oppressed. Why should some Evengellical or Catholic priest get to do it under the "powers vested in me by the state of Las Vegas" and not a UCC pastor? Till they take a sense of personal offense, they're not in it.
[ Parent ]
I thought
it was MCC that filed the suit in Canada (MCC Toronto, to be precise).  Perhaps UCC was a "friend of the court," or some such, in the same case.  For that matter, I wonder why we don't hear more righteous indignation from MCC leaders (it may be that the media don't think to contact them)...

Peace,

noahsdad

[ Parent ]
And when
were you going to tell me about this move, young lady? Or is this the stateside thing we discussed awhile back?

Email me when you get a chance...

[ Parent ]
No, Mom, just locally
New apartment closer to work, just for me. You shall hear everything, promise. And I am REGISTERING UNAFFILIATED when I change my address!

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi
[ Parent ]
What I really don't get
Is if we are so inconsequential that we can be ignored, no, not ignored but crapped upon, then why did they feel the need to court us in the first place?

This is what is most painful to me.  Why did he promise so much, why not just state your real position?  Most of us would have still voted for him, but not felt the sting so bad now.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

Because he's the Candy Man
From this point in time, after the largely successful and entirely sexist, vicious, and ruthless Swift Boating of Hillary as Mrs. Antigay Satan by Obama, Inc., many have forgotten that, just as she did with most Democrat demographic groups, she began the race for the nomination with not just name recognition that dwarfed his, but a large advantage among gays that persisted for a good year, and included gays eager to financially support a gay rights-friendly candidate as they had in unprecedented focused numbers in 1992.

Even after his appearance at the LOGO forum, according to "a November 2007 Hunter College Poll, nine out of ten lesbian, gay and bisexual U.S. citizens said they would vote in the democratic primaries and 63% of those polled indicated that they would vote for Hillary Clinton, while only 22 percent indicated that they would cast their ballots for Barack Obama." - "The Gay Vote: Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon" - gaywired.com

New York magazine, February 8, 2008: "Why Barack's Mojo With the Gays Can't Match Hillary's - Why did twice as many gay Democratic voters prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama on Super-Duper Tuesday? Despite Obama's soaring rhetoric of inclusion, according to exit polls, Hillary won the gay vote 63 percent to 29 percent in California and 59 percent to 36 percent in New York. ...."

So Obama Inc., which had resorted to asking black Donnie "gays are trying to kill America's children" McClurkin to pimp for black evangelical votes in South Carolina with whom she held a wide lead, simultaneously increased the pro-gay RHETORIC [see the video montage Pam has linked to] and its coverage in the lavendar blogosphere and print gay media [which she foolishly failed to match] and let the dogs out about her personally, in general terms and her gay rights credibility.

Where once the Hillary Is An Evil Bitch mantra had been the domain of the rabid Right Wing, it was taken up by Obambots, straight and gay, and supersized. Several began to echo the Huffington poster who called her a "melodramatic and megalomaniacal monster," and one month after defeating him among gay voters by wide margins across the country on Super Tuesday, a member of Obama's "LGBT Leadership Council" set fire to the Internet with his e-mail blast that, oddly, didn't even mention gays at all:

"Subject: Clinton lies and sleaze...We cannot tolerate her lies and stolen election...we are going down a nasty road with a nasty, secretive and proven lying Clinton." It went on to blame her for her husband's infidelities, suggested she cheated on her taxes, and "the Clintons' bags were searched when they left the White House and they had to return historic artifacts and gifts."

He was forced to resign, just like Obama's foreign policy advisor who'd called Hillary similar names, but the narrative stolen from the radical Right had already been ignited and the flames fanned every day.

At the same time Obama was [falsely] perceived as using the Gay-word as often as Guiliani reference "9/11," the meme went out that Hillary NEVER used the Gay-word; her husband signed ["created"] DADT and DOMA, therefore, she was homohating by default and couldn't be trusted to keep her word unlike Lord Barack, pure as the driven snow.

In this corner: the Gay Loving Magic Negro [never mind that he couldn't exactly remember the name of the "gay person who has influenced you most"]. In that corner: the triangulating card carrying cunt.

But I digress.

Why did Obama promise so much: votes and money for other votes.

But once in got into the White House in part by getting into our pants, he moved to the right to sell his "change" in other errors, and where he perceives his greater strength for reelection lies.

[ Parent ]
PS: this is not
PS: this is not to assert that Hillary would have been anymore proactively gay positive...there's no way of "knowing" that.

But there weren't the warning signs around her that there were around him during the primaries including not wrapping her oppositon to marriage equality in Jesus ribbon [surely I don't need to recount the others], so it's difficult for me to imagine than she would have been any worse that I imagined he would be...inactive for us.

I never imagined he would so agressively and NEEDLESSLY work against us...all the while continuting to add insult to proverbial injury: "Sure, I just raped your rights...but I still love you, Baby!"

[ Parent ]
Yes there IS a way of knowing that
Her husband created DOMA and DADT.

GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!!!

[ Parent ]
ah, yes, guilt by association.
I'm no fan of either, but the actions of one are not the actions of the other.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...
[ Parent ]
Except when they ARE
She has done nothing for us and never will.  
[ Parent ]
She's marched in a Pride Parade.
Can you imagine "God is in the Mix" doing the same?

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
[ Parent ]
And she advocates spousal rights for federal workers
In her Department. President Gays-Are-Pedophiles has NEVER taken any action so bold.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi
[ Parent ]
I Don't Know...
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

I don't think Clinton would have pulled the nonsense Obama's DOJ is pulling, but she publicly supported the passage of DOMA and opposes gay marriage.  Like Obama, she supports extending federal benefits as long as we don't call it marriage.  But she actually has the ovaries to back it up.

[ Parent ]
SO FUCKING WHAT??????
Pride Parades these days are less political than the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.  
[ Parent ]
If you're running for office in NY State
Marching in a Pride parade will cost you votes on a grand scale in most western counties, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, Allegheny, Orleans, Niagara, Tioga, Broome,

There is in fact political risk and cost attatched to doing it in this state David.

I don't recall seeing President Obama participate in any gay rights event

But the issue is DOMA and keeing control of the news cycle and the message out of the hands of the Administration, so that we can get our level of disappointment and anger out to the public, as well as the loathesome comments in the brief that we so object to

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

[ Parent ]
Take your fucking meds!!!
Brilliant, published writers are the most responsible for correct word choice, particularly those so right on point in the face of Obambots' rewriting of reality.

He "created" DOMA and DADT? That will be news not just to him but Bob Barr and Sam Nunn.

Signed them? Yes. Sometimes defended in court? Yes.

But, again, spare us the SEXIST PIG nonsense that she would ipso facto have done ANYTHING that he did.

[ Parent ]
No reason to believe any of them
Sorry - Hillary has guilt by association.

Obama is nearly as guilty as Bill (although O hasn't gone as far as Bill did - yet).

They always line up to finger bang us or grab us by the scruff of the neck every 2/4 years by saying they love us or that we are nothing without them...

the problem is THEM...the Democrats.  all of them.  

They are the enemy.

They cannot be defended.  And comparing the level of their worthlessness to the other party is not defense, it is excuse and we are guilty of allowing LGBTs to get away with it.

No more Log Cabin Democrat bullshit.  We can't laugh at the LCRs without realizing that the Democratic Party cheerleading is the same goddamned thing.

We must sever ties with THEM.

[ Parent ]
Love the "sometimes"
Keep it up. A Beltway job will soon be yours.  
[ Parent ]
Keep it up...
...a straitjacket will soon be yours.

I've finally figured it out...you hate EVERYBODY.

[ Parent ]
Uh oh
For the record (as if anybody in this echo chamber cares) I meant to rate this post a zero, not a four.  Why?  Well, I've always despised bullies and name-callers, and every time Michael interacts with anyone who doesn't hew to his private party line, he immediately goes all personal.

He must be special.

[ Parent ]
please refrain from that language
I don't want or need to see any woman referred to as a "cunt" on this blog. Please be keep the conversation civil. You can make your points clear without going there. Many thanks.
[ Parent ]
I should have put it in quotes....
I thought from the context it was clear I was referring to what OTHERS said.
[ Parent ]
it's politically stupid, and at this point obama is only alienating voters
that huge chunk of the electorate that put him in office was told that there would be an end to the politics of divisiveness we've seen in this country.  that population--who by their sheer numbers includes many people beyond the gay community--is exhausted with those kinds of leaders.  now obama has become one, siding with divisiveness with such ugliness, and for the history books to remember, that it leaves the people who voted him into office with no choice but to see him for what he is: a liar, a bigot, a divider, and an opportunist.    

we've all heard the stories of certain politicians who are well known for surrounding themselves with gay staffers and acquaintences in their private lives, but who take on an extremely anti-gay public persona to win elections with their anti-gay constituents.  in this case we have a president who didn't win on the support of bigots, who doesn't need the support of bigots to succeed, and who the bigots won't support under any circumstances anyway because...well, they're bigots.  

it seems pretty simple to me--obama can be as anti-gay as he wants to in private, but his public persona was elected last november to do better than this.  how that message could not be reaching him is beyond perplexing.


The gays stole my lunch money

also legally stupid
OK, OK, he has to "defend the law". Certainly, DOJ could have done the usual arcane Acts-of-Congress-are-the-law arguments, followed by the judicial-encroachment-on-the-legislature bit. Separation of powers stuff. Boilerplate. Pro forma.

The DOJ didn't have to hand ad hominem arguments and citations to a Justice Thomas or a Justice Alito to copy-and-paste into a binding decision down the road. The very idea that LGBT people are not a subject class strikes directly at the heart of several state and appellate decisions working up.

And I'm still waiting for the Administration to at least say they would support a DOMA repeal and let Chris Dodd or Pete Stark run with it.

I did figure the Administration would go slow on LGBT stuff. I didn't think they'd carry the ball for the other team, however.

So, is this weakness? Or treachery? Same result, but different mindset.

Reporter: Sir, those are dummies.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: How do you think I got elected?
--Blazing Saddles

[ Parent ]
Richard's post is right on.
There is no excuse for this slap in the face to gays and lesbians.  

Because I am concerned with the LGBTs and supporters that continue to make excuses for Obama and this defense of DOMA, I have created a 'synopsis' of our 'defense of DOMA' issues on my blog.  

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

The answer is simple, Pam
HE HATES US!!!!

And we accept this because

WE HATE OURSELVES!!!!!

The solution is not to leave the Democracts and vote Green (ie. out of the frying pan into the shothole) but to TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM !!!

Do we have the guts to do so?

Uh. . . .Nope.

We want to be luuuuuuvvvvvved.

That's why we can be played so easily.

Mebbe you do ;)
I went to too damn much trouble to get to today to hate myself.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...
[ Parent ]
they play this song often enough
We want to be luuuuuuvvvvvved.
That's why we can be played so easily.

You would have thought we would have gotten past this desperate desire to be luuuvvved after all these decades. You know, the old (maestro, please) ...

Maybe this time, I'll get lucky,
Maybe this time he'll stay,
Maybe this time, for the first time,
Love won't hurry awaaaayyyyy,
He will hold me, fast, I'll be home at last,
Not a loser, any more,
like the last time and the time before ...

Time to realize that this one is just as fickle.

[ Parent ]
"It's 2009, toadies."
OK, "It's 2009, toadies" is awesome, and just sums the situation up perfectly. I love it!
The GOP has moved right. And the DNC has followed.
There's a guy who increased social security benefits, increased federal tax revenue, and worked to protect the environment: Republican Richard Nixon.

Imagine George W. Bush doing that.

While contemplating how far the GOP has moved, think of where the Democrats are these days.

The fact is that both parties are now to the right of us. The "Party of Lincoln" has written us off, and the Democrats take us for granted because they're (potentially) less damaging to us than the Republicans.

By the way: for the purposes of this argument, "us" can be people of color, GLBT, feminists, union members, or any minority other than rich white males.

The rules of the game are simple: GOP - you get the Bible thumpers. Democrats - you get the queers and "-cans": Africans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans...". The two parties fight over the "middle". And we use the other parties for comic relief.

If we vote Democratic, we say "Good job guys" and things continue as they have.

If we vote Republican, we say to the Democrats "Move right". That's completely the wrong message.

So the only way to change the game is to show the Democrats that they can't count on us, and that we can vote for someone else and - sometimes - get them elected. But, in doing so, we will almost certainly make things worse for ourselves.

If we vote Green or another party to the left of the Democrats, there's a good chance that the Republicans will win. If so, things will get worse as the Bible-thumpers believe they have regained ground.

It's possible that some clueless Democrats will think this means they have to move right because the GOP is beating them - completely missing the point that their trusted base has moved to the left of them. If they keep doing so, hey will find themselves sharing the right end of the bell curve with the GOP and, one would hope, conceding the rest to the Greens or other true progressive party.

But the hope is that the Democrats are smarter than that, and will eventually wake up to realize that they've lost their way. It might take a few election cycles, though.

Either way, we would see years where the environment, civil rights, and rule of law suffer under corporate theocracy. We would have to be willing to suffer more Gingrich/Delay/Buchanon/Bush/Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/Robertson leadership to get the leadership we desire.

The alternative is the status quo: a choice between those who appease their base by denying our rights, and those who ignore our rights because they feel they don't have to appease us.




Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted
How about tactical voting?
Voting Green in a state with a large margin between Democratic and GOP candidates does nothing to help the Repubs get elected in any world but the DLC fantasy-land -- the "Green voters in California helped Bush get elected" trope is an attempt to force anyone left-of-center back into line while diverting attention from Democratic Party cooperation with (or at least acceptance of) Bush's election-stealing.

So, sure, I can understand people in swing states making a clothespin vote for the Dem -- but here in California, for instance, the Repugs aren't close enough to take a Presidential vote -- and most of the local votes aren't close either.

Of course, the whole election system is rigged to favor two dominant parties -- the options would be much more broad in a parliamentary or proportional-representation-based system.  Unfortunately, changing the system would ultimately have to be done through the two parties who most benefit from keeping things as they are.

[ Parent ]
I like this idea
there's some pragmatism to it
[ Parent ]
I did this in 2000 in Illiniois
But you know what, I want the Democrats to feel some pain behind this betrayl.
[ Parent ]
Tactical voting *seems* safe
but it doesn't change anything.

If all the LGBT people vote for a green candidate and the Democratic candidate still wins by a large margin, it tells the Democratic candidate we don't matter and we can be safely ignored.

And by voting for Dems in close races, the message becomes "We need the Democrats more than they need us".

That's the recipe for continuing an abusive relationship.

We have to be willing to leave the abusive relationship. That means things may get much worse for us in the short run, as we move forward to better times.




Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted
[ Parent ]
In primary elections vote pro-gay
Don't vote for candidates with "God in the mix" or who hire homophobes to campaign for them,

In the general elections, ok, vote damage control, but at least vote pro-gay in the primaries. That way more candidates will learn that we can be the deal-breakers in primaries.

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

[ Parent ]
Obama can go Fuck himself,
  Well, anyone who has read my comments of late should know that is how I feel.  I am just wondering how many more people feel the way I do.  And I know I have been saying this for quite a while.  Only this time I don't think I will get all the TROLL grades like I have in the past.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.
I believed in him.
I voted for him.
I asked others to vote for him.
Now I'm disappointed in him.

I don't think he hates us though. He wouldn't have officially declared this our LGBT Pride Month if he hated us.

I do think he's a homophobe/transphobe. Not the hateful kind, but the kind that is still embarrassed by the thought of us, just as society taught him to be. The only remedy to that is more exposure. We need to send him letters by the millions, nice little handwritten ones, even if only to introduce ourselves and tell him about our mundane lives.

He's also trying way too hard to "reach across the aisle." He still sees the religulous reich as legitimate and worthy of respect. He hasn't yet learned that there can be no compromise between our agenda and theirs, and that their agenda is the suppression of freedom and the enforcement of biblical mandates.

I thought he was smarter than this.
I'm disappointed.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

Don't you know how the game is played Wolfgang?
It's called "Cognative Dissonance." And it's as American as Spree Killing.  
[ Parent ]
Doesn't hate us?
Excuse me, but what fantasy land have you been living in?

This is a guy who sent out anti-gay bigots to stump in his name during the campaign, who cozied up to a preacher who funds murder and torture of gay men in Uganda. This is a guy who has gone out of his way to break every campaign promise concerning our civil rights, our citizenship, our very LIVES. This is a guy who has sent his attack poodle to run interference at every presser with a fake pass of either "I don't know" or "we'll get back to you." This is a guy who sent 2LT Sandy Tsao a pretty little note about how unfair it was that she was being kicked out, then spat in her face by sending his Rethug Defense Secretary on national television to talk about how queers are still a threat. This is a guy who has sunk so low as to make cheap jokes at our expense at fundraiser dinners.

Dress it up in whatever apologist language you dredge out of your lower intestine. Backstabbing, lying, and contempt in the name of corporate-interest war-profiteering Jesus is still hate. People need to grow a spine and call it what it fucking is, already.

President Obama hates gays, plain and simple. His actions have clearly demonstrated this, and have since the primaries. It cannot be any plainer than if he comes out on prime time and says it himself.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

[ Parent ]
Honestly,
he probably doesn't think about us enough to hate us.
[ Parent ]
seen this film before
Everybody might want to get the old Evita DVD out and remind themselves about the fundamental nature of public advancement.

EVA
    Oh but its sad when a love affair dies
    But we have pretended enough.
    It's best that we both stop fooling ourselves.

    CHÈ
    Which means -- (arm gesture)!

    CHÈ and EVA
    There is no-one, no-one at all
    Never has been and never will be a lover
    Male or female
    Who hasn't an eye on
    In fact they rely on
    Tricks they can try on their partner
    They're hoping their lover will help them or keep them
    Support them, promote them
    Don't blame them
    You're the same

Ah, politics. The art of the possible.

[ Parent ]
You proved me wrong, Pam
what I said in the first email.

That said, I think we need to use the remaining Pride Parades to get the message through. Not wait for the late fall in Washington, DC.

And this is what I have to say about that:
easy to explain
I think you're right, and I'm through with him.

Unless there's a complete about face, I plan to actively campaign for a third party candidate in '12.

[ Parent ]
I will be a candidate in 2012
Gotta live if I'm gonna say it.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...
[ Parent ]
Dyssonance '12
because resonance hasn't worked.

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
[ Parent ]
Where are you, dyssonance?
If you're in PA, you've got my vote.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

[ Parent ]
It is easy to explain the Administration's antipathy
Simply put, and I have said this repeatedly, the President considers homophobia, particularly relgiously based homophobia, an acceptable prejudice to hold.

He is, as we are, very fortunate that President Johnson did not consider religiously based racism, such as that held by Reverend Jerry Falwell, a prominent segregationalist, equally acceptable, and certainly not an acceptable prejudice for an administration to show deference towards

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

And from a legal point of view
religious based homophobia is legally protected.
[ Parent ]
Let me add
that's why removing the tax exempt status for churches not allowing churches to actively participate in any citizen based initiatives (as well as explicit endorsement) for candidates is paramount. Because as long as religious institutions have a chokehold on there elements of the electoral process, this will happen.
[ Parent ]
easy to explain
oops! my reply is above!  
[ Parent ]
"God is in the mix"- In longhand
WCT: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly ...

In 2008, this became "God is in the mix"

Now as sickened as I am by this Obama brief, he's right about this. Much of what our side has done has been to demonize entire communities (religious and ethnic) as opposed to working with them.

As demeaning as it seems that I should have to go out and educate out-and-out bigots that "hey, I'm a human being," Education and working with many communities is necessary. Not with the hierarchies and what not but the everyday people in the pews.

Now Obama could be a help as far as this is concerned in explaining the distinction between notions of "civil marriage" and "religious marriage." Since he refuses to do it then we have to.

This is what I have always meant when I have said to other that the gay community is xenophobic and with good reason, I think that holds up.

For example, as I stated on another thread, we're having a MOW. What about the African-American community that actually lives there? There are plenty of churches (of many faiths and races) that can be worked with. Will Mel White of Soul Force have time to speak at the MOW? Will Anthony Woods (should he choose to speak)?

A lot of this may seem like a ramble and maybe it is and I am truly offended by this DOJ brief. It needs to be condemned.

But what's done is done. What do we do now?


Here's what we COULD do...
1.Shut down DC.

For a day.

WHEN Congress & the Prez will actually be THERE.

Could.

But we won't.

2. Take out a series of full page ads and 30 second commercials in mainstream media condemning and embarrassing him for his hypocrisy with FACTS more than self-righteousness and exploiting the support of the majority of straight Americans for everything but "marriage."

HRC has more than enough $$$. NGLTF has some. And I bet Tim Gill, Mitchell Gold, David Geffen, and other gay millionaires would give more.

Could happen.

Maybe will. Or likely not based on orgs past refusal to give up enough of their "nut," share "turf," or have the imagination. [But look for a lot more preaching to the choir ads in gay press and letters in the mail condemning him...with the word "Donate" attached.

3. Turn every remaining Gay Pride event into a SHAME OBAMA! action in banners leading the parades and speakers from the platforms.

Won't happen. Too many gays still willingly have their heads up his ass and too many other gays don't want to hear anything not directly associated with music, alcohol, drugs, consumerism, and fucking.

4. Refuse to donate another gay dime to any DEM running in 2010 [save Gavin Newsom for governor of California].

116 gays and 287 lesbians will have the balls.

The rest will cave.

[ Parent ]
OK, and what about the Congress?
They have to pass to the laws and get them to his desk. Don't we shame Nancy and Harry too?
[ Parent ]
Yes we do.
Shame all three of them.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!
[ Parent ]
Absolutely....
BUT they didn't run, whenever that last was, as THE Great Gay Champion.

And, for all the exaggerated power attributed to them, I'm convinced that if they turned gay themselves tonight and rode up the Capitol steps tomorrow morning with rainbow flags unfurled, Congress would still be sitting on their hands.

Obama was right: it's all about "leadership" and he's in the superior position by default as President and, in fact, by the love most Americans still have for him versus Congress.

And, of course, Nancy or Harry aren't the Commander-in-Chief who, with the stroke of a pen freeze discharges and with the snap of his fingers say to his generals, "accept the fags" or you'll die behind a meaningless desk in the farthest reaches of the Pentagon.

Too many forget that Truman showed his OTHER huge ball by FIRING one of the most popular generals in American history in the middle of a war whose casualties were more than twice those in Iraq & Afghanistan [so far].

[ Parent ]
Michael, if you focus your energy
on Obama, the GLBT community will (wrongly) be called racist.

Whether you like it or NOT!

[ Parent ]
Let me add
I wouldn't say this if I hadn't already run up against it.  
[ Parent ]
And I respect that...
...BUT I don't think it's too late for US, of ALL colors, to draw a line in the sand and say to the Jasmyne Cannicks and her straight counterparts of color on the other side,

WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE BY YOUR RACE BAITING ANYMORE.

The OPPOSITE is what helped get us into this situation to start with, in more ways than one.

"Obama can't POSSIBLY be bigotted OR indifferent to the discrimination against other minorities...he's black!"

Black David Ehrenstein dares write an article attributing the early messianism around Obama to the "Magic Negro" syndrome and gets verbally crucified by gays of all colors.

The previous "Magic Negro"-Colin Powell-led a mutiny against Clinton to create DADT, demonizing gays along the way, suppressed information about the My Lai massacre and Iran-Contra, opposed help for the Kurds and intervention against Milosivec, and lied about Iraqi WMD, and most recently lied to Rachel Maddow's face claiming that Clinton had NEVER asked him to change the existing gay ban... and he's never held to the same standard of criticism as a white, lying bigot would be.

Sure, reference and denounce a triumvirate made up of Obama, Congress, and the Antigay Industry. But NEVER blink when professional victims like Cannick try to silence you!

[ Parent ]
But that's why we need
strong voices POC's of color (such as our blogmistress).

To call that bullshit for what it is. Bullshit.

[ Parent ]
Amen....
and that's why I respect Pam so much.

She's not afraid to admit that she might have been wrong publicly.

David Mixner, albeit white, is going through the same shock and anguish on his site.

On the other hand, as I've said in various ways, I never really trusted him [re LGBT issues] and yet I'm probably as dumbfounded by this chain of events as they are.

[ Parent ]
Obama has never struck me
as a particularly callous politician. Ruthless yes, but this is downright cruel. That's Rahm's special touch, though.

(By the way, the entire McClurkin episode was highly disturbing. First of all, McClurkin was a Bush supporter in 2004. 2) Obama never really had support in the black community here in Chicago. I'm still surprised that he does as good with African Americans as he does. And, depending on who you ask here, there's still a bit of dislike for him.)

And still, I can figure out exactly what he has to gain by this piece of filthy trash brief other than:

Further innoculating himself with ethnic communities.

[ Parent ]
What do we do? We refuse to go back to nonsense
the way that we usually do.

This time we fight, we protest, we disrupt and we keep doing so. We do not submit to the dire warnings of the "A-Gays" that we will make their lobbying more difficult, for their ineffective lobbying and addict-like intoxication for deal-brokering brought us this fiasco.

We, as the LGBT people, take the banner of leadership for ourselves and we finally refuse to relinquish it to the very same forces that opposed Harvey Milk right up to the time of his death.

We, as the LGBT people, embrace the idea that rights are not purchased incrementally nor are they brokered at the price of other parts of the community.

We, as the LGBT people, recognise that those holding 1,000 dollars a plate dinner are vastly out of touch with those who can barely manage five dollars for dinner, and that their insularity and social protections purchased with both our donations and our handing them position and power has blinded them to the oft desparate plights of many amongst us.

We, as the LGBT people, must rise up and say "No more, no more gratuitous insults embodied in government papers and policy, no more careers ruined by DADT to keep from inconviniencig agendas, no more enshrinement of discriination against us and keeping it in place because of fear of spending political capital. No more LGBT's fired because of who they are, no more tolerance of killing us for simply being us at the rate of one a week, no more LGBT's made homeless because of prejudice of landlords, "

We must rise, we must not be deterred by our former leaders, for their claim to leadership has worn out, we must hold on to our outrage, our thirst for justice, and yes, to our anger.

We lead ourselves now. We represent us. We must fight for us. And we must TAKE our rights from the hands so very unwilling to deliver them to us.

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

[ Parent ]
On this note
no more LGBT's made homeless because of prejudice of landlords, "

Or those who cannot or will not put up with the bigotry and prejudice at home (which was my case) 1) You, the parent of that LGBT will be shamed (I did it with my own family, it's not impossible!) and 2) You can find a "home" in the LGBT community.

[ Parent ]
"Former Clinton aide"
... oh good, the last real Democrat that gave us so many good things. This guy should be a real expert on DOMA!

Listen, stop relying on the Administration. The rightist and anti-equality/anti-family blogosphere is chugging along with more protests, more organization, and we're sitting here arguing over how outraged we should be about this thing.

You can't fail unless you give up, and it sounds a lot like the entire GLBTQ blogosphere has just thrown in the towel, for all its hundreds of thousands of supporters and readers.

Where's our organization? Monthly marches? Monthly local meetings? Are we supposed to have a movement by sitting online and typing out our outrage every day instead of tying white ribbon around city halls and lamp posts or handcuffing ourselves to the front door of our capitol buildings? Where are our marry-ins? Our Freedom Rides? Our MOW?

No, let's just tweet about how outraged we are. "#obamasucks".

I know you from Dan's place
I think.

Even in the blogosphere, I'm a hobo.:)

Uh, this is a pretty big blow coming from an Administration that claimed to support us and pocketed our money, votes, and time.

I think a little time to vent, cry, whatever is appropriate.

[ Parent ]
Clean your glasses, Grasshopper
It's not about "relying" on the Administration. It's about holding them accountable; about getting them to do what ONLY they [and Congress] can do.

Or would YOUR March on Washington be to protest TO Lincoln's statue?

[ Parent ]
Why do they only speak up after they are out of power?
Where was Socarides when President Clinton signed DoMA?  If Richard Socarides was a gay Clinton aide, then why the hell didn't he speak up when President Bill Clinton chose to sign DoMA into law in the first place?

Why do these aides and officials only speak up for what is right after they are no longer in a position to make a difference?