This sucks to watch:
I can understand both sides of this- there is a lot on Obama’s plate, but how can you deny that Savage and the gay community has every right to be pissed? With a few exceptions, it has been a really bad year for gay rights, with another stab in the back today in New York. And the thing to remember is that we are getting to the point that it will be a year soon. Not the first couple of months, but a whole year. It gets harder and harder to defend the inaction.
(via Americablog)
arguingwithsignposts
Let’s look at what’s been on the plate:
Health Care
the Economy
Afghanistan
Iraq
a bunch of idiot right-winger obstructionism at every turn
and I totally understand Savage’s frustration. I wish he’d convince a Senator or Rep. or two to put a repeal of DADT or DOMA through those chambers so the president could sign a law.
And it’s still been less than a year.
sigh.
Noonan
Comes back to what Claire McCaskill said about politicians hating to take more than one high profile vote a term, Between a couple wars, torture, health care, tarp and a jobless recovery Obama didn’t want to spend capitol on a social justice issue.
Hooray for technocrat incrementalism!
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m impressed with Obama’s remarkable ability to disappoint everyone simultaneously.
Corner Stone
I’m sure you’ll find a way. I have faith in you.
jayjaybear
@Just Some Fuckhead: Proof that he’s governing as a centrist…everyone’s cussin’ him up…
As a gay man, I’m at least as frustrated as Dan Savage. Today’s vote in NY (not my state, but a neighbor) was really disheartening, and the fact that six of the eight Dems who voted NO are extremely safe New York City seats is infuriating.
mk3872
Barney Frank said 2 weeks ago that he met with the WH and he will bring a bill to repeal DADT in 2010.
Obama NEVER said he supported gay marriage.
Obama signed an executive order granting full domestic partner rights to gay couples in the Federal Govt.
I suppose you could say he should move faster with DADT or try to repeal DOMA.
But a little perspective would be nice.
My problem is that activists like Savage & Sullivan act like little baby divas when they don’t get their way.
How far would they have gotten under McCain or any other GOP leader???
cleek
what can a president do ?
DADT is a law. and a president can’t nullify laws.
if you have a problem with a law, you talk to your representatives, because they’re the people who write the laws.
arguingwithsignposts
@mk3872:
what is this “perspective” of which you speak?
(I appreciate your comments, btw)
Mike P
At some point, Obama needs to make an argument that’s going to make the wingers put their cards on the table. In short, he needs to make the point that to continue to fight in places like Afghanistan, now and in the future, we need troops. We’re denying ourselves the best fighting force we can have by expunging gay soldiers (we all know about the translators in Iraq being dismissed).
What do they want? Endless war with a volunteer service that’s less than optimal because we are forcing gays out? Or do they want the best force they can get, a force that actually truly represents America, that lets gays serve openly?
Screw their unit cohesion arguments. Look around the world. It’s happened and the armed forces that have incorporated guys into their fabric haven’t fallen into tatters.
Seriously. Make these dudes put it out there.
asiangrrlMN
@mk3872: The difference is, they didn’t make any promises to the LGBT folk. Obama did.
I’m split because I don’t particularly care for Dan Savage, and I think he’s limited in his scope, but he has some damn good points. I know we have had the argument about what Obama himself can and can’t do, but it’s pretty damn frustrating to watch failure after failure and be told, well, you know.
I knew Obama was not for gay marriage when I voted for him. I voted for him, anyway. However, I did expect him to be a bit more pro-active on the issue. Democrats have always dangled LGBT issues out as what they would do if they are elected, and then they don’t. That’s pretty damn hard to take year after year.
And since I see the thread is going to be more of the same arguments, I will bow gracefully out of it now.
Mike P
@cleek:
You can nullify a law…if you’re W!
Molly
@Just Some Fuckhead: FTW
Leelee for Obama
Considering the current plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, this may be a really good time to call for a repeal of DADT. We will still have high troop levels in Iraq for 2 years, and the beginning to transition to Afghan forces is at least 18 months away. That leaves a very small number of deployable troops, what with dwell time and injuries and training. Maybe it’d even be an excellent time to invite those GLBT soldiers who were discharged to come back if they wish, as they wouldn’t be needin’ much in the way of training, and so many of them are linguists. Perhaps some of them actually speak Pashtun? We know that many are Arabic speakers, and that’s what they speak in, where is it, oh yeah, Iraq. Perhaps this was on the table during the discussion period? There have been whispers of changes to come-Perfect time for it, I’d think.
Mike P
@asiangrrlMN:
Let’s look at the lay of the land on DADT:
There are possible bills moving in both the house and senate. The president says he will sign it if they pass it. The Sec of the Army (appointed by Obama) supports overturning it. Powell, as well as many other retired general, support the review. The American public has expressed support for overturning the law that’s solidly in the 60%+ range, despite political leanings.
I’m thinking it’s gonna happen. And yes, it been slow…but, and I don’t mean this in a flip way, the two wars and the destruction of our economy needed to be tended too.
Lev
Let’s see:
This year, gay marriage became legal in Vermont, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. It’s going to become legal soon in D.C. Obviously, that it got turned back in Maine sucks, and the uselessness of NY/NJ Democrats on this suggests that some part of the party is still deathly afraid of raising this issue even when there is clear polling indicating public support. NJ sucks especially since Christie is so right wing and would veto gay marriage legislation. 40-45% of the public supports gay marriage, but there are only a handful of Senators I can think of that do. There’s a very real disconnect between the people making up the progressive movement and the people representing them, I think.
But, additionally, Washington State upheld it’s marriage-in-everything-but-name law and Nevada instituted domestic partnerships for the first time. Hate crimes protection for gays and lesbians was signed into law, as was the end to the HIV ban. And DADT repeal is going to be attached to next year’s defense appropriations bill, which means it’s going to pass sans filibuster.
So, to my way of thinking, it was a very good year for gay rights in America. Some painful setbacks, but more victories overall. I can totally understand wanting it all now–shit, if I were gay I wouldn’t put up with any excuses. But there’s been quite a bit of progress so far as I can tell.
lamh31
So the New York backstabbing was Obama’s fault?
arguingwithsignposts
@Lev:
Everybody forgets that one.
ruemara
@arguingwithsignposts:
um, I think cleek provided a most succinct perspective.
Guster
@cleek: A president can sign a stop-loss order in an afternoon. Then fix the law later–without firing people for being gay in the meantime.
MikeJ
Everything is Obama’s fault.
stormhit
He’s not really making any new or deep points there. He’s demanding unilateral executive action instead of legislation. Sure, that’s probably the fastest way to accomplish something, at least temporarily, but there’s a number of ways it’s also foolish. This has been covered in many places before, so I really don’t see what’s hard to watch about what he’s saying.
arguingwithsignposts
@Guster:
I thought that was one of the things we didn’t like about the last president.
Just Some Fuckhead
@lamh31:
Actually I think we can blame the Dutch for that one.
kid bitzer
i see that exactly zero republicans in the ny senate voted in favor of marriage equality today.
and rumor has it that they voted that way because they’re afraid of being ‘scozzafava’d, i.e. attacked by the activists in the republican party who are theocratic fanatics and single-issue bigots because of their hatred of the gay.
the republican party is shrinking into an ever smaller cadre of religious homophobes.
in light of that, i think we should all do our best to undermine the democratic party and attack the democratic president.
gwangung
@Lev: Personally, that makes me think that folks have to be careful on how to push forward on gay rights. There has been some victories, but there’s been an awful lot of disheartening losses.
Lay of the land is that we can’t even get a good health care bill passed without defections from the Democratic legislators; it suggests to me that pushing forward without a careful plan is going to be a sure failure since it’s clear that there’ll many more Dems pealing away from a gay rights law.
For the record: annoyed with Obama’s timidity on this. WAY more pissed at the Maine electorate, Roman Catholic lobbyists and legislators who think basic human rights can be legislated.
Calming Influence
Yeah, but we’re gonna get a triggered opt-in co-op anti-choice non-option-for-98%-of-us public option in the we-only-need-the-support-of-40-more-Republican-senators Most Awesome Health Insurance Reform Bill Ever!™®, so it’s all good, right?
Pender
Yeah, good points, guys — what CAN Obama do if the votes in Congress just aren’t there? Let’s brainstorm:
You can issue a stop-loss order to stop DADT discharges if you’re the President. Stop loss is a statutory power granted to the President, and it does not violate DADT to exercise it. You don’t need Congress; you just need a pen. But he didn’t and won’t.
You could either refuse to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, or if you absolutely had to defend it, you could avoid comparing gay relationships to child rape and incest. You don’t need Congress for that; you don’t even need a pen; you just need to pick up your phone and tell the Justice Department to do it.
Here’s a good one! You could say “I believe in equality under the law for everyone, and that means no one should be legally prevented from marrying.” It would change the tenor of the debate; bigots couldn’t justify their bigotry by shrugging and comparing it to the President’s position. You don’t need Congress, and you don’t even need a pen or a phone. All you need is a set of vocal cords. But even THAT is too much for Barack “Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman” Obama.
These three things in particular DO NOT REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES. They do not require Congress at all. The only thing they require — the ONLY THING — is willingness to extend the smallest of gestures to a helpless minority that is currently suffering under a modern version of segregation.
But that’s too much to ask of this self-proclaimed Fierce Advocate of gay people who is, it must be remembered, only the mere President of the United States.
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
You are exactly right. Don’t think an American Presnit has done that since they had to haul an elephant bathtub into the WH for Taft. Though TR may have achieved it.Could that be a good thing? I don’t know.
Guster
@arguingwithsignposts: Well, I didn’t like hearing George Bush talk on the TV; that doesn’t mean that I’m obliged to dislike Obama talking on the TV, too.
A stop-loss order to prevent decorated fighter pilots and Arab linguists who WANT TO CONTINUE SERVING from being discharged does not seem, to me, to be an abuse of that legally-granted power. Maybe it does to you.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Calming Influence: Haha
mk3872
@arguingwithsignposts:
The perspective of which I speak: DADT has been on the books since Clinton. DOMA for several years now.
These things will not change over night. Particularly with the heavily embedded U.S. army biases against gays.
Lastly, the perspective that is needed to understand that we have a WH that supports the gay community, has openly gay administration officials and is working with Congress to repeal those horrid laws.
Brian J
Not being gay and thus not having my rights trampled, I can’t say I really know what he and others are going through. But I can imagine why he’s frustrated.
Still, I’m not really sure what they expect him to do. Do they think he can just overturn DADT whenever he wants? If he could do that, or do other things just as easily, why wouldn’t he do it? He could, I guess, but then it’s very likely that he’d be breaking the law. There’s also the idea–a very valid one, I think–that it’s better if the desire to overturn the crappy policy comes more from within the military as opposed to it being forced on them.
As for state marriage cases, what is he supposed to do there? He can always voice his opinion, but unless it’s a lock that the right thing will happen, which was supposedly the case today in New York, the disadvantages seem to far outweigh the advantages.
arguingwithsignposts
@Guster:
Hey, I’m no expert on the way the legislative/executive balancing act works. I’m just saying that we disliked this type of thing when Bush did it, and we ought to apply a little consistency. I wish there were a repeal bill for DADT and DOMA available for signature right now so we weren’t having this conversation.
General Winfield Stuck
Nothing like a good war debate amongst dems for things to get out of hand PDQ. Wingnuts just get out the Soldier of Fortune Mags and a Dick Cheney rally rag and have at it the joy.
It”s an intramural bloodsport for us.
Might have to have a few Ghey threads Cole, to settle things down.
Brick Oven Bill
“I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus, Barney always introduces me as his lover.”
-Herb Moses
To the best of my knowledge, here is a picture of Barney and Herb.
Note Barney’s hand on Herb’s ass, and Herb’s hand tentatively touching Barney’s back.
Herb was employed by Fannie Mae and was made responsible for ‘Product Initiatives’ and expanding ‘loan opportunities’. Many put much responsibility for the housing crash on Herb’s shoulders. Herb probably made a pile of money as Barney’s lover. Three months after Herb left Fannie Mae, he and Barney officially broke up.
Personally, I believe that Herb was using Barney for career purposes, and there was little or no sexual contact. This is because Barney is a physically repulsive individual, and it is hard for me to imagine anyone becoming physically aroused by Barney’s naked body.
We learned about this stuff at sexual harassment training for The Facility, as taught by the female of northern European descent. It is called ‘this for that’. ‘This for that’ is a no-no.
gwangung
@Guster: Actually, it seems to me it removes the incentive for Congress to deal with it permanently. Makes it way easier to put off dealing with it.
Guster
@arguingwithsignposts: Well, I don’t think this is really a ‘balancing act’ issue. This is definitely an executive power, according to Wikipedia: “… the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States …”
So if Obama thinks that decorated fights pilots and excellent linguists are essential to the national security of the US, he’s got every right in the world to issue a stop-loss order.
My problem with Bush’s stop-loss orders were that I thought they hurt the troops and broke the military–not that I thought he didn’t have the legal right. He did. I think everyone agreed on that.
MikeJ
Ignoring laws you don’t like seems like an abuse of power.
res ipsa loquitur
I don’t know that what happened today in NY can be classified as a “stab in the back”. Seems to me (NYer here) that it’s much more about a legislature thumbing its nose at a weak governor. Paterson wanted to sign the bill.
Brian J
@Brick Oven Bill:
Just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn’t mean it’s true.
There is no credible evidence that Fannie and Freddie caused the housing market crash. Just none.
Guster
@MikeJ: Stop-loss is not ignoring the law. Stop loss IS the law.
lamh31
OT but,
Did anyone catch the Rachel Maddow Show with Susan Rice on? I’ve heard from a couple of people that Ambassador Rice
“got the better of Maddow. Rice had an answer basically for every question and in the end I think Rachel herself damn near tapped out because she had nowhere else to take the interview.”
http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/2009/12/hot-damn.html
Guster
@gwangung: I think the opposite. That after a few years of gays serving openly, the arguments against will crumble.
But neither of us can know what’ll happen. All we know is that right now people are being fired for being gay; people who are doing a great job, and want to continue doing that job.
ruemara
So I’m sitting here listening to Rachel Maddow read the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Law and I must say the American LGBT situation is near Hoekstra, comparatively. My urge to beat a fool is rising as this horrific law gets closer to being passed due to the interference of the American Taliban here.
What can I say, Obama is not running to make LGBT issues his top priority. That is a simple fact. He is chipping away at the institutionalized bigotry where he is legitimately able and not making the dramatic point by using an executive order. There’s no 2 ways about it and activists, gay or straight, have a right to be pushing him. But the whole “Obama hates teh ghey” thing…really? There’s nothing he’s done, there’s not a stunning lack of laws like the aforementioned and in fact, a new law to the contrary? Oh well, then I guess Obama is just a god awful idiot president who’s completely ignoring a base because he’s timid. I love Dan Savage and I think we’re just going to have to disagree until DADT is repealed by Congress in 2010.
joe from Lowell
Dan Savage doesn’t seem to understand what the term “rational basis” means in appellate law.
As for ENDA, DADT, and DOMA, it isn’t that LGBT issues are being ignored, but that Obama’s entire legislative agenda is backed up behind health care reform.
What else has moved? What other domestic legislative policy stuff has been coming out of the White House since Obama took over? Green jobs? Bank regulation? Cap and Trade? No, because the White House decided that pretty much the entirety of its efforts to promote a legislative agenda are going to be first spent on health care.
In a couple months, maybe a few months, HCR is going to be disposed of, one way or another, and then we’ll get to see what Obama actually does or does not do on gay rights, and on a lot of other issues, too.
If you want to complain that gay rights, or anything else, should have come before HCR, or that he should be pushing a broad agenda in Year 1 instead of concentrating on health care, that’s a reasonable argument, but casting Obama as the enemy of gay rights, as the enemy of environmental legislation, or whatever your particular issue is, because the administration decided to go with an HCR-first strategy, strains credibility.
WyldPiratd
Mike P@9
This is what I find most infuriating about Obama. It’s almost as if he is dispassionate about every issue. None moreso than the Health Reform debate. It was as if the White House was just going through the motions.
I really don’t get it. There is almost no pushback from the White House on the absolute avalanche of lies and deception–even from or towards the centrist Democrats who are fucking shit up left and right. Lieberman should have been long cast into the wilderness.
I still support him, but he’s coming across more and more as a milquetoast “yes massa” Uncle Tom to me instead of taking a stand on anything.
Clinton Triangulation Redux….finger permanantly gauging the winds
gwangung
Before or after a Republican gets elected to office?
Methinks you are being too optimistic; the arguments are crumbling with the general population. Politicians needs something more forceful (sledgehammers, at least).
joe from Lowell
If Obama signs DADT repeal in July 2010, ENDA in January 2011, and repeal of DOMA in April 2014, is Dan Savage going to be attacking him?
Unless you think that a president who leaves office in January 2017 with that record deserves condemnation as an opponent of gay rights, then you have no respectable basis for casting Obama as such today.
Calming Influence
Here’s what I’d like to see, and what most progressives would like to see, and a majority of the rest of the country would like to see:
we would like to see Obama fucking Cowboy Up and say “this shit is wrong, and that shit is wrong, and that OTHER shit is grievously wrong, and everybody in this country outside a few sociopaths know it, so let’s fix at least SOME OF THE EASY SHIT now, mmkay?”
Because that’s why so many people voted for him.
Sheeeee-it.
gwangung
These two statements do not necessarily go together, and, in the present case, do NOT go together.
ruemara
@WyldPiratd:
milquetoast “yes massa” Uncle Tom
Oh, I don’t know, it could be because engaging in stereotyping of black men, well, black people based on temperament would be off putting to moderate & conservative non-blacks and dominate the national media because that’s how they roll. Don’t know where I could’ve gotten such an idea. I’ll just go be angry and black and female now, in my welfare cadillac.
joe from Lowell
BTW, “casting Obama as the enemy of gay rights” is not the same thing as “reminding him of his promises during the campaign, and keeping the issue at the forefront.”
It seems like the LGBT community is using its political efforts to attack Obama, rather than to sell their agenda to the broader public, and to make the American political scene more fertile ground for its passage.
I don’t think this is an effective method of using their energy and resources to advance the gay rights agenda.
ChrisNBama
Obama has been President for 10 1/2 months. He still has 37 1/2 months to go.
As others have pointed out, he’s already tackling the economy, two wars, closing Gitmo, Health Care Reform, Financial regulation, Climate change, and other sundries too many to list.
He has never been a proponent of gay marriage. He has advocated the repeal of DOMA and DADT, which is going to take legislation to repeal. He could issue an executive order to cease all prosecutions related to DADT, but that would be a stop gap only. Barney Frank and Patrick Murphy and others are already on record that they will push for legislation on these two issues in 2010.
I don’t think it’s prudent to open another front on the culture war right now. Particularly since we already have the abortion issue raising its head in the health care debate, and we learn today that something like 30 new stem cell lines have been opened up for research and federal grants.
I think the one salient point that Savage makes is that the Obama administration defended DOMA using some of the most vile rhetoric imaginable. It is entirely understandable for the gay community to be outraged by this. Obama has tried to mollify the anger, and has largely succeeded, but he has work to do.
I just wish gay activists would give Obama some more time to resolve these issues. I have every confidence that the landscape will be greatly improved in the next twelve months.
Silver Owl
Pretty much in America the rights and equality of everyone except the white “christian” man is of lower priority than anything else that can be dreamed up as more important.
The United States of America is NOT that free, nor gung ho about democracy and equality. Let’s be honest if America was all it bragged about we would not be having to deal with issues that nearly a 100 years old and almost 200 years old. Gay equality, equality for women, equality for anyone that is not straight white male.
We’re talking about a lot of recycled chit here. Nearly 100 years of recycled chit for women and gays. Nearly 175 years on the non-white issues. America needs to chit or get off the pot. Right now America’s arse is growing around the toilet seat.
We’re bringing up the rear on a lot of chit for the insecurity and buyability of limited and ill-raised arseholes. America is NOT the go to nation when it comes to equality and freedom. Insecurity yes, freedom no way.
Guster
@gwangung: Well, I could ask the same about the ‘incentive’ that you suggested that Congress is now feeling.
If Obama issues a stop-loss order tomorrow, and in two years the military hasn’t collapsed under the weight of sheer faggotry, then making legal what is already happening strikes me as easier than … whatever we’re doing now. Which is nothing.
And as I said, the most important thing is to stop doing the wrong thing. We’re firing people for being gay. That’s wrong. Sometimes you need to stand on principle. I think that this is one time when, if you do that, you’re also doing the smart thing.
Calming Influence
@Brick Oven Bill:
Shut the fuck up.
lamh31
@ruemara,
I caught that too, I was gonna comment on what WyldPiratd said, I’m glad you responded before I did though, I’d probably wouldn’t be less civil than you were.
This is some of my problem with Mr Savage, I don’t begrudge him his anger, but over the past year, Mr Savage has said many things I as an African-American consider borderline racist about African-Americans and LGBT issues that makes me a strong LGBT supporter not very willing to listen to anything he has to say.
lamh31
That is to say, that I would have been LESS civil than you ruemara, in response to WyldPiratd
Brachiator
@Mike P:
Yep. This should be a no brainer for getting rid of DADT.
As for the rest, Dan Savage and others should keep pushing, and Obama should keep juggling.
Brick Oven Bill
‘Calming Influence’ doth protest too much. It sounds like ‘Calming Influence’ is a sexual harasser.
joe from Lowell
If I was in Congress, or in the White House, and I intended to support a bill to repeal DADT next year, I wouldn’t want the Republicans to talk about the sneaky, back door maneuver the President engaged. I can just hear John Cornyn: “The President knew he had to sneak this radical policy through, because he knows the American People oppose it. Just like those elitist judges in Massachusetts.”
I’d want them to talk about the policy itself, because this is a winner for the Democrats.
No half measures. DADT was created when Congress took up and debated a bill, and passed a policy into law. It needs to be taken down the same way, and it will be.
joe from Lowell
BOB always gets a little randy on DADT threads.
arguingwithsignposts
@lamh31:
@ruemara:
As a white guy, I thought the “uncle tom” comment was over the line.
Good ole St. Ronnie!
tofubo
OT, of course
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-general-stanley-mcchrystal-is-going.html
Calming Influence
Failure to directly address discrimination against gays legitimizes homophobic behavior. This isn’t about gays “feeling uncomfortable” or “put upon”, it’s about telegraphing to ignorant fucks (see Brick oven Bill, above) that gays are second class citizens/godless perverts/sub humans.
These ignorant fucks then use this subtle message as an justification for beating someone senseless and tying them to a fence in Wyoming in winter.
Yeah, we could have started with just letting everyone use the same drinking fountains, but if we had, I wonder: who would be president today?
Jason Bylinowski
@Brick Oven Bill: “We learned about this stuff at sexual harassment training for The Facility, as taught by the female of northern European descent.”
Best sentence ever constructed. And of course, by best, I mean worst. :/
scarshapedstar
I know the military can do no wrong, but I still think the way our trained killers freak out over the possibility of non-closeted gays in the ranks makes them look like a bunch of pussies. And yes, I’m talking to you, Private Cletus Hatfield.
bhagamu
I was pretty taken by surprise by the New York vote today, because I live in New York and hadn’t heard anything about it. I didn’t even think it had a chance of passing the State Senate anyway. I first heard about it when Kos posted that there would be a vote today on the issue, and that supporters were “confident” that there were the votes, which struck me as a little fishy.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the big disappointment of today seems to be that people had their hopes up only to get wtfpwned again.
New York is a Democratic state, but by no means a liberal one, and there’s a ton more work to do to get gay marriage passed here. 7 votes short in the Senate isn’t a “close” vote, it’s a wipe.
Nick
ok, I’ll deny it…Congress, after, what?, TEN years, finally passed hate crimes extension and the President signed it. That’s hardly inaction…incrementalism, yes, but not inaction.
arguingwithsignposts
@scarshapedstar:
Win.
Brick Oven Bill
Beginning at The Facility, I was filling an order from the bottom row, and a woman who outranked me said:
“If you keep bending over like that, I will slap your ass.”
This is no shit.
I think that this might have been sexual harassment, but it really didn’t bother me, although I might have been violated in my own perception. The next day, she offered me a piece of chewing-gum, so it was all OK.
Guster
@joe from Lowell: Three things.
1) Stop loss isn’t just a half-measure toward ending DADT. It’s a way to prevent valuable and contributing members of the military from being discharged when they wish to continue serving. The legal ability to do that, in the middle of two wars, is justification enough. More than enough.
2) Stop loss isn’t just a half-measure toward ending DADT. It’s a ways to prevent people from being fired from publicly-funded for their sexuality, right now. It’s a question of equal rights. That is also justification enough.
3) Stop loss _is_ a half-measure toward ending DADT. Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’d slow down this current legislative juggernaut that’s currently hurtling toward ending DADT. Maybe I’m right. Maybe it’d speed up the meandering snail’s pace that’s not going anywhere in particular. Maybe neither of us are right. But that’s all arguable–while numbers 1 and 2 strike me as pretty damn clear.
DaBomb
@ruemara: This. Massa Uncle Tom? Seriously. There’s is no way that President Obama climb the ranks of the Chicago ladder, being an Uncle Tom or timid.
@lamh31: I also feel the same way about Dan Savage. Not a big fan. I am not jumping anywhere near this bandwagon. But as I have always said, when DADT, ENDA get passed, Obama won’t get credit. It will be because, Dan Savage gave himself a pat on the back and told Obama what to do. It won’t have anything to do with campaign promises made.
@ChrisNBama: Your statement will fall on deaf ears.
Kit Smith
I’m going to point out that it took Obama something like 4 months to officially decide to send more troops to Afghanistan, something that he’d been talking about doing since approximately day 3 of his presidential campaign. He doesn’t move fast, but neither does the tide. It’d be nice to see more, but I think expecting him to all of a sudden rush headlong into an issue when his M.O. has consistently been to put all of his support pieces in place before going for checkmate is kind a ridiculous level of expectations.
That being said, it’d be nice to see him moving sooner rather than later. Hearing he was moving his rook to D4 would be nice every once in a while.
Tx Expat
@Jason Bylinowski:
Kinda makes you wonder what “The Facility” is, doesn’t it? Is it more like “Sling Blade” or “Men Who Stare At Goats”?
Mark
Lev’s list notwithstanding, Dan Savage is right that Obama has not provided the action he promised.
But one thing that bugs me is this:
According to exit polls, gay people voted 27% for McCain/Palin, a significant increase over Bush.
What percentage of GWMs voted for McCain? 40%? I’m sure it’s lower than SWMs (59%?) but it says to me that a lot of gay people were willing to overlook the Republican party’s bigotry because they were voting on other issues.
Are gay people really signed on to progressive issues? Do they support universal health insurance? Do they want to stop the wars? Do they support higher taxes on the rich and corporations? Do they support government stimulus?
I think many of the loudest voices – virtually all GWMs – don’t agree with me. There is a deep streak of conservatism among gay people that makes many of them support war and lower taxes on the rich and oppose spending on health insurance. There’s a reason why most gay politicians at the federal level in this country are closeted Republicans.
Maybe I’m wrong. But the idea that there are significant numbers of gay Republicans in this country boggles my mind. And if I’m going to prioritize federal legislation, I’m not going to do it to benefit a group that votes Republican.
Tx Expat
@Brick Oven Bill:
Ok BoB just answered my question: “Sling Blade” it is. Thank you sir!
Maude
All I can think of is the wingers latching onto gay people speak Arabic and Obama is a secret Muslim and together, they want to undermine the fundamental goodness of this Christian Nation.
Silver Owl
@scarshapedstar:
It’s less about the men and women that actually fight and more about the stay at home assholes leeching their masculinity off of their blood.
See when they fight they are not concerned about who “might” want to screw them in a war zone and more concerned about can their fellow military keep them alive.
I for one do not want some insecure moron losing it or being incapable of doing his job because HE thinks SOMEONE MIGHT want to screw him but that doesn’t pop his peter to attention. His insecurities and obsession with his own fuckability rating will get others killed which makes him useless for his team and the nation.
DADT is more for the mouthy arseholes that sit home and never fight.
gwangung
@Kit Smith: Ayup.
And I think more than a few people are misreading the lay of the land, and are being way more optimistic than warranted.
tomvox1
@res ipsa loquitur:
Yes! And the Dems in the NY Senate who voted against Marriage Equality probably did so mostly to deny Patterson a victory that he could run on, thus making a new standard bearer for Dem NY Governor a more likely possibility. It is absolute gospel that Patterson can not win a general election.
Politics really is sort of evil sometimes…
hal
Stop loss is a red herring. America Blog got that one going, and all of a sudden, it’s “what Obama has to do.” I see no incentive for ending DADT with a stop loss. What’s wrong with waiting until 2010 to have the legislation? It’s right around the corner.
And, I say this as a gay man, DADT is horrible, but I really wish the gay community would focus way the hell more on DOMA and ENDA. DADT affects an incredibly small portion of the population, and it seems to be vastly out of proportion with the amount of attention it gets.
Finally, Dan Savage lost me after his Prop 8 rant, so I tend not to listen to anything he says anymore.
DaBomb
@Mark: You might be onto something here.
Other than Pam’s House Blend, a majority of the black gay sites and other people of color aren’t necessarily in lockstep with Dan Savage and Sully.
We have several prominent black gay bloggers who visited the site that I moderate and they do not agree with the boycott or “the loudest voices- GWMs”.
As for not Obama not fulfilling his promises, there’s still 3 years to go.
Michael D.
@cleek:
Of course not. Nobody has said he can. Obama also can’t sign an executive order telling Federal officials not to enforce Federal drug laws in California. Right?
El Tiburon
What is so frustrating is the Obama’s Administration duplicity on these issues.
Why do they have to defend DOMA or whatever by using the incest and pedophilia bullshit?
Obama is against indefinite detention except when he is for it.
He is for using the court system for trying Gitmo detainees except when he is against it.
He is for transparency except when he is against it.
It goes on and on and on.
He may not be able to use the Presidential Pen to overturn DADT, but he can certainly use his bully pulpit to back-up what he promised while campaigning.
I’m getting into a mindset where my ass will be at home come election 2012.
Although it is refreshing to see Cole not telling the homos to STFU and be patient.
We are just talking about equal rights for American citizens afterall.
DaBomb
@hal: Dan Savage lost a lot of people on his Prop 8 rant.
Nellcote
@scarshapedstar:
That’s unfair and inaccurate. It’s not the “boots on the ground” with the problem. It’s the Christianist/Family members in the upper eschelons of the Pentagon that are the problem.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Sadly, it’s been a horrible year for gay rights. Part of the problem is that giving the voters a chance to tell you what they think causes them to tell you what they think. Like it’s been said before, we’d still be arguing over interracial marriages if the voters were allowed to decide. Of the three branches of government, the President is the one who cannot do anything about gay marriage, and I wouldn’t trust the Supreme Court right now. Roberts will declare gay marriage unconstitutional because he finds it icky and there’s nothing in the constitution guaranteeing anyone the right to make him feel icky. And then there’s Congress.
Tx Expat
@Silver Owl:
I don’t mean this to sound condescending, but have you ever spent any amount of time around combat troops? My brother is in the military (highly decorated, about to do his 5th tour since 2003, deploys w/Special Forces and CIA b/c he he’s the guy who calls in the airstrikes) and him (and all his buddies) are all about their fuckability. They brag about it, but the way they talk to each other, if you didn’t know any better, you would think they were completely enamored w/each other (in a Top Gun way – read gay).
I’ve had this discussion with my brother, just as I’ve had the discussion about women in combat roles, and baseline is: yeah unit cohesion is important, but it’s all based on stereotypes. His main point is that the vast majority of the military is made up of the bottom 5% of every class, primarily from the South, thus the exclusions make sense since most of the grunts are ignorant.
My counter-argument is close to yours and premised on the knowledge that in the military – you do what you’re told. Plus, and my brother can’t deny this, in combat you’re not even thinking about the fuckability or whatever of the other person. You’re concentrating on their ability to keep you from getting killed.
Michael D.
So, all of a sudden, when Dan Savage says all this in a funny way, it’s legit. But when I and a few others were saying this just a couple months ago here, we were basically told to STFU and stop bitching.
What’s changed – besides it being a talented, funny, sex-advice columnist instead of just a couple of regular homos that comment at Balloon Juice?
Someone who is making all the same points we made a couple months ago is being taken seriously and now we’re told we have a right to be pissed, when just a few short week ago, we were getting posts telling us what a bunch of WATBs we were being.
I don’t get it.
Michael D.
@arguingwithsignposts: The end of the HIV ban came under President Bush. The process finished under Obama. It would have taken effect under ANY president. Don’t give Obama credit where it’s not due.
inahandbasket
“Obama signed an executive order granting full domestic partner rights to gay couples in the Federal Govt.”
That is SO NOT TRUE. He signed a memo that gave extremely limited benefits:
“WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signaled to gay-rights activists Wednesday that he’s listening to their desire for greater equality in “a more perfect union.” But he didn’t give them even close to everything they want, bringing to the surface an anger that’s been growing against the president.
“We all have to acknowledge this is only one step,” Obama said in the Oval Office, where he signed a memorandum extending some benefits, such as visitation or dependent-care rights, to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees…Obama said he wants to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed and in its place a law that would give the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees health insurance and survivor benefits, among other things.
“I believe it’s discriminatory, I think it interferes with states’ rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it,” Obama pledged, flanked by lawmakers and advocates at his Oval Office desk.
Without that repeal, Obama’s ultimate goal of extending health benefits would have to wait. ”
…
“The breaking point came last week, when the administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to reject another state’s legalized gay marriages and blocks federal Washington from recognizing those state-based unions. Overturning it is a top legislative target for gay activists. But Justice Department lawyers used incest as a reason to support the law.
Critics saw the Justice memo as evidence of Obama saying one thing and doing another.” – June 16, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31403699/ns/politics-white_house/
Corner Stone
@Kit Smith:
The tide moves every day.
Michael D.
@ruemara:
Nobody said that. Where is that coming from? No one said Obama hates gays. We’re saying he’s not doing anything substantive to fulfill promises he made. Don’t put words in our mouths that we didn’t say.
lamh31
OT,
MSNBC is re-broadcasting The Rachel Maddow Show now. Like I said upthread, I’m hearing that Ambassador Susan Rice seriously laid the smackdown on Rachel Maddow. I love Rachel, but she as doing her usual smart-alecky schtick she normally does, but this time she was doing it based on the Afghan plan. She opened the segment showing and making fun of a ridiculous looking flowchart-like thing that represents the military’s plan for victory (or whatever) in Afghanistan. Susan Rice was actually in studio, and from what I hear the look she gave Maddow when Rachel finally turned to her could burn ice.
I’m not surprised, if I remember correctly from the campaign, Susan Rice was an Obama advisor, and whenever she was doing an interview, she was a beast!
gwangung
Because that wasn’t what you were being told by most of the folks around here. Because you WERE being told that you had a right to be pissed. And you weren’t being told STFU, but were told something else.
Now, I won’t deny that SOME people did that. But not the majority. Any heat you were getting from the majority of people was over tactics, not strategy. And differences in tactics isn’t worth going nuclear over, IMAO.
Now, if you keep treating the majority of people (which I remind you, are supportive, are saying that you have a right to be pissed, who are NOT telling you to STFU) like the minority, then I WILL say that you’re kicking me in the crotch when I’m trying to help you us. Dunno if that’s being a WATB, but it’s close enough…
charles johnson
“I’ve had this discussion with my brother, just as I’ve had the discussion about women in combat roles, and baseline is: yeah unit cohesion is important, but it’s all based on stereotypes. His main point is that the vast majority of the military is made up of the bottom 5% of every class, primarily from the South, thus the exclusions make sense since most of the grunts are ignorant.”
The avg IQ of military members has been estimated as 5 points higher than the general population.
wilfred
Sure you do – only this time it was your ox that got gored.
But be patient. Cole is emerging from his WHY DON’T YOU SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT!? phase and starting to see the same endemic hucksterism the Deemocratic Party that he finally saw in the other one.
Now comes the Second Great Awakening.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Mark: Nope the only thing that keeps Sully from voting Dem is they haven’t passed marriage laws for gays. After they do he’ll vote for Republicans because that party matches his views.
Which really ought to tell you how bad McCain fucked up picking Palin.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
Who said it’s legit. Seems to me most of the comments here are contra DS.
Um, it didn’t come under bush if it wasn’t *finished* until Obama (which came in October, btw). And you’re seriously suggesting it would have come under *any* president? Maybe, maybe not. Bush was more progressive than his GOP compatriots wrt HIV/AIDS.
charles johnson
If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid manage to get this Health Care Reform act passed, from what I’ve studied of its provisions at Ezra Klein’s blog, it will be the greatest progressive accomplishment in my middle-aged lifetime.
So yeah, keep the pressure on to make the gay changes too. But WATB behavior about this administration, not a year into it, *is* ignrnt.
Silver Owl
@Tx Expat:
Yep. Got Marines, Army and Navy for many generations. Every war covered. When they fought getting f*cked in a war zone was the last thing on their minds. Staying alive, keeping their buddies alive and getting home were the number one priority.
LOL! Actually the getting f*cked was my tamer translation. I do believe a closer approximation from Army brother is “Who the goddamn gives a rats dying fucking ass about who wants to fuck who when we’re goddamn fucking fighting our motherfucking asses off. The stupid motherfuckers can yack their goddamn motherfucking asshole mouths off at the goddamn bar to impress some goddamn sleaze he wants to suck his dick when we get home.”
Marines were more explict. LOL! Military are made up of many. One this is always top priority staying alive.
Michael D.
AWS: Ending the HIV ban was a Bush administration-initiated policy. Simple as that. Arguing that it wasn’t because it finally came to an end under Obama is the kind of logic one might use to say Obama is responsible now for the clusterfucks that are Iraq and Afghanistan. Except that Obama IS really now responsible for those.
Tx Expat
@charles johnson:
Again, I don’t mean to sound in any way condescending, but have you ever spent a good amount of time on a military base?
The military lowered its standards a few years ago, I would be very interested in seeing the source for your assertion.
I’m not saying that *all* military people are ignorant, am just saying that the entry level grunt is very young and ignorant indeed. My brother’s a sharp guy, as are his friends, but he’s not a grunt.
Splitting Image
Totally disagree. Gays won nearly all of the important battles this year, the most important being the Iowa decision and the Evangelical Lutherans’ social statement. All the Republicans have shown in Maine and New York is that they can successfully block progressive legislation and that they’ll do it given an opportunity, but we don’t even have to be discussing gays to know they’ll do that.
2009 will be remembered as the year mainstream churches in America started to embrace the gay community, and that is a very significant step. Even the Mormon church has thawed a bit, considering how strongly they were backing prop 8 last year. People underestimate how important church involvement was in getting marriage equality in Canada. It didn’t happen because of the sudden election of a progressive government. It happened because of the split in the conservative coalition and the fact that one of our major churches switched sides during the debate. American churches have been moving more slowly on the issue, but aside from the Catholic Church I guess, they have been moving in the right direction.
Give it another year and see how things are going next November. In the meantime, I do think the federal government is going to have to make up for lost time after they finish with health care. I agree that DADT is a no-brainer and they’re going to have to repeal it pronto as soon as the health care bill is out the door.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
Um, what? Seems like you’re reinforcing my point.
tripletee
I hate everyone – gay, straight, bi, or Republican – after reading one of these DADT/DOMA threads of endless clusterfuck.
I blame Obama.
DaBomb
@arguingwithsignposts: I didn’t even listen to the video, because it’s Dan Savage.
And I have heard that same statement about how the HIV/AIDS ban could have ended under any President line so much. Like I said, even when Obama keeps his campaign promises, he won’t get credit for it.
jcricket
I like to point out a couple of statistics related to that.
It was 100 years between when the first state legalized interracial marriage and Loving v. Virginia was decided.
When the Supreme Court made that ruling, 17 states (17!) still had anti-interracial marriage laws on the books.
Even in the states where interracial marriage was legal, it was widely vilified. Something like 75-80% of the population “opposed” interracial marriage. The public didn’t “support” interracial marriage in any majority-like-levels until the late 1980s (or early 90s, I forget).
Basically b/c of brave legislators and court rulings, the cause of civil rights was advanced far ahead of the public/majorities “wishes”. This is as it should be.
The problem now for gays (or any other minority hoping to have better civil rights) is two-fold: Spineless douchenozzle centrist equivocating Dems and the right-wing abuse of the initiative/referendum process (this also destroys any attempts to have tax/budget sanity at the state level).
Yes, I’m disappointed in Obama, and all the Senate Dems in NY, and frankly any Dems who think running rightward/away from civil rights is anything other than capitulating to bigots.
Am I going to go all “Naderite” because of it? No. I’m not a dumbass. But I will be agitating at a local level for the Democratic party to move further left.
And I do/will support primary-level challenges in places where a more liberal Dem could in theory replace a corporate-conserva Dem.
arguingwithsignposts
@tripletee:
So I take it this is all good news for John McCain?
Nick
@Michael D.: There’s also that whole Matthew Shepard Act thing too.
The truth is the gays aren’t Obama’s base, they aren’t even close. McCain won more of the gay vote than any Republican in recent history. They’re not part of his base. So, yeah, gays end up low on the priority scale.
At this point, I’m not even sure what his base is anymore, everyone who voted for him thinks they’re the base.
Tx Expat
@Silver Owl:
LOL! Same here, lots of military in my family from all branches and from all generations. Here’s a link to my bro’s job description. That SOB has an ACTION FIGURE! No wonder he’s so arrogant.
YankeeApologist
Hey all. New here, so don’t mind me as I wade right in.
It’s easy for me to see why Dan Savage is raking Obama over the coals. When you’re being compared to child molesters, I think it’s very easy to lose sight of the overall picture. Maine and New York were defeats this time around, but who ever would have thought Iowa and New Hampshire would be victories? I think this is not the kind of change that happens overnight. So, I think all of us New Yorkers need to take a deep breath.
As far as the DADT nonsense goes, I also think this situation will resolve itself the same way it did in World War II, when black soldiers were finally allowed to fight on the front line as a matter of necessity, and the worry became what would happen when black and white soldiers would be forced to share the same barracks when Germany was occupied.
What ended up happening is the same thing that happens whenever ANYONE survives a combat experience together. They bonded, gambled, joked, and worked together. The same thing will happen here. My little brother’s in officer school right now, and his take on gay soldiers is the same that mine would be – “If they take orders and aim straight, I don’t care what they do at home”.
tripletee
@arguingwithsignposts:
That’s President McCain to you, whippersnapper. And yes, yes it is.
Tx Expat
@Tx Expat:
That last comment should have come with a :-).
He’s awesome (as are his friends), but the best thing about them is their sense of humor and their Zen nature. Those Christianists ought to think about proselytizing Buddhism rather than evangelical Christian thinking into the military – Buddhism (combined w/profanity) is much more effective.
gwangung
I’m not disagreeing here, but it seems to me that the abusive uses of the initiative/referendum is what complicates any comparison to interracial marriage. You can’t push just any initiative forward through the courts or legislature; you’ll get a knee-jerk response with a right wing referendum, which you wouldn’t have gotten in the 1960s. Court cases will be decided as narrowly as possible (which means they’re susceptible to a more broadly drafted referendum) and legislative laws are subject to sabotage by right-wing inspired amendments (allowing for an easy referendum or blockage).
It still seems to me that a grassroots oriented set of tactics is necessary to work in concert with legislative and judicial initiatives, if only to blunt the impact of right wing demagougery.
Elie
jcricket
If I may add, not just agitating that the party move to the left, but building active constituencies to support the move. You cannot coerce change in leaders that is not supported at the grassroots. You just can’t successfully. All that does is force advocates to bang their shoes on the table demanding that leaders do this and such. But without the real votes to underpin their demands, they cannot protect the elected leaders or their policy goals.
The left has a harder job recruiting for the things we advocate for. They are usually things that are not inspired by materialism or wealth and have many beneficiaries rather than a narrow set of winners who would benefit. We are generally not supported by moneyed interests either. We HAVE to get boots on the ground people who will vote and advocate to support our candidates and give em the initial cover to “do the right thing”. Otherwise, we are in a very shaky top down situation, relying on the honor and bravery of individual legislators ….
kay
@lamh31:
Maddow found a huge chart, which she displayed, that purported to be The Afghanistan Plan.
I think she was trying to make the point that The Plan is incredibly complicated and unworkable, by showing this huge, unwieldy chart.
Rice said “I was in every meeting and I never saw that chart”. Cold.
I love Rice because she’s so fierce. She also knows exactly where Maddow is going with every question, before Maddow finishes speaking. It’s not surprising. Rice has been working this problem every day for months. She knows all the questions.
Lancelot Link
Aside from Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and their predecessors, Obama has been the worst president ever in terms of gay rights.
gbear
It’s so heartening to read everyone’s concern that we be treated equally while voicing their concerns over why we should just, you know, chill the fuck out for a while longer; why it’s just not the time for us to have the same rights as you just right now. I should be less pigheaded and selfish.
This while the fucking C-street ‘Family’ is unhindered in helping to make it possible to be imprisoned for not turning in your gay brother or son in Uganda. Nobody is trying to shut down C-street. The only way that will end is if they all fuck themselves to death.
Nice balance.
I need to stop reading these threads BJ comment threads on stories related to gay rights, which seem to be seen as very special rights to so many commenters. The concern of these very concerned commenters is duly noted. Thanks tons.
arguingwithsignposts
@gbear:
And it’s so heartening to hear the same righteous indignation poured upon our heads as people who genuinely care about making sure those rights are extended to the GLBT community.
Man, if you want to piss off the people who really want the same thing you do, then be my fucking guest.
Michael D.
Can someone please point me to the video of Dan Savage’s “Prop 8 Rant?”
Sorry, I admit I’ve never seen it and would like to. Thanks!
Couldn’t find it via the Google.
Silver Owl
@Tx Expat:
To bring him down a peg you can always point out the doll has no genitals that work assuming they even gave the doll genitals. Then ask him if it’s based on the original. LOL!
The military does breed arrogance no doubt about that. It does not mean that arrogance is correct nor does it mean it is protected from challenge. The fights my brother and I had when he came home to visit and he tried to treat me like I was one of his subordinates. Oy vay.
The military is like any other community they have assholes in a plenty as well. The sooner the people understand they aren’t mythical creatures the better off they will be.
gbear
@arguingwithsignposts:
Look, you sound just as indignant and self-righteous to me as I do to you. The difference is that you’re sitting on the side of the line that doesn’t get harassed in the street for holding hands in public. I get pissed when people think I should be grateful for their patronage while simultaneously telling me to sit down and wait.
Michael D.
@gbear: Here’s to you! Fucking right.
DaBomb
@kay: Just saw it. Susan Rice knows her stuff.
arguingwithsignposts
@gbear:
That’s true, and I’m walking a fine line here. I haven’t faced nearly the shit you have. I’m not going to play any “my best friends are gay/black/jewish/whatever” games, either. I really do wish there were no waiting for anyone. Hell, we’ve got native americans who’ve been waiting for over 200 years while being lied to and treated like shit.
I hated Prop 8, I hated Maine, I hated NY.
Just realize that when people point out the political reality, it’s not because we don’t want it, or we’re just concern-trolling. We do want it. We do want Obama to do the right thing.
It’s a big plate, and there are a lot of people knocking on the door, okay?
peace.
hal
No one ever said it was a video. Google Dan Savage Prop 8.
Nick
@gbear:
ah, you’ve never been in an interracial relationship in a white affluent Long Island neighborhood. I’m not really sure what you want us to do about this? People are jerks
silentbeep
My questions for any activist, gay or not is this: what do we do now? what do you do now?
This is Obama. This is who is. I am saddened, I am disapointed but I don’t feel betrayed – Joan Walsh said this on Salon regarding Afghanistan and I agree with this sentiment, regarding a whole lot more than Afghanistan. I knew he was a centrist from the get-go, and not necessarily all that left either especially on gay rights.
What are the pragmatic steps to take at this point? We’ve heard that he’s been disapointing, that Dan Savage has some very good points, etc. but what does this all mean?
We know what we are dealing with now. Now the “hope/change/campaign/progressive dream” phase is finally over (and granted it’s been over for awhile for many people) it’s time to look at different tactics. LIke it or not, this is the President we voted for, and focusing on other avenues for pressure (ex. pressuring congress regarding DADT0 is needed now more than ever. Also focusing the pressure on the local community left can be just as effective, it’s worth the fight, there have been victories in local elections as many people have cited in above comments. And keeping the pressure on Obama too its still needed for sure. There’s no guarantee for a second term. Perhaps there will be enough splintering for another Naderite threat like we saw in 2000 and Obama gets Gored. That Gore/Nader thing set a precedent which should tell Obama this: do not take progressive/left support for granted. We have three years left, which is a long time politically as well.
We are the change we have been waiting for. He’s not the change. We are.
Yutsano
@Brick Oven Bill:
BoB just got a tingle down his leg.
Will comment more seriously when I get home and I can rant a bit more lengthy.
arguingwithsignposts
@gbear:
BTW, I did have a step-father tell my sisters that if they ever dated a black man, they’d be disowned and kicked out of the house. Does that count? I have witnessed more than I wish of racism and homophobia in my time on this earth.
Cerberus
I’m a queer American. I put this first because it is of dire importance that I do so.
Fuck Dan Savage. Really, I am becoming sick and fucking tired of gay white men, often the same ones amenable to the mondo racist bullshit post prop 8 taking a five minute long piss on everyone in order to get out their tantrum.
I don’t mind the sentiment. Obama has not been the strongest advocate, the democrats in general have been petrified to back gay rights issues, and more importantly, I heartily encourage everyone to both push at the Overton Window in this country back towards sane as well as to push and motivate Obama from the left and away from the “beltway consensus” democrats in Washington find so compelling.
But I’m sick and tired of the bullshit. Hating on Obama and blaming him for the dysfunction ever present in having a party like the democrats which is made up of everyone sane in America like it’s somehow his fault that ruling them is like herding cats does make the headlines and get you invited on the “serious” news programs. But if you are going to waste the opportunity throwing around shit like the discredited “Obama can stop loss DADT” and “DOMA is all that matters”, what’s the point other than to make gay men look like tantrum throwing teabaggers?
And more importantly, I am sick of the revisionist history. We passed federally a massive Hate Crimes Legislation. It has already proved its effectiveness in Puerto Rico where an investigation that began with the chief of police BLAMING the victim for his death because of his “unnatural lifestyle” was taken over by the feds and produced a suspect within a day who then confessed to the crime.
There was also massive movement on AIDS issues and a DADT repeal and inclusive ENDA are waiting in the House Committee.
Could we have gotten more faster? Quite possibly and it’s very worth it to point that out, but I’d like my white rich gay self-proclaimed “leaders” at least pretend to acknowledge that a bill crucial to whether I LIVE as a transwoman and whether or not if attacked, the crime will be investigated properly, is at least something that occurred. I realize for rich white gays, they believe they will never be attacked by a homophobe, that they are safe because they avoid “those” neighborhoods, you know, where people look like Obama, but it was kinda sorta a big deal to those shlubs on the ground, especially those queers who also look like Obama or are female or are trans or etc…
And I’d like to see some acknowledgment from the Obama Sux crowd on that point before I believe that their crap is anything more than a half-racist hissy-fit that the democratic caucus is a herd of ill-tempered piss-streaked alley cats and thus they want to anthropomorphize it in Obama to make it seem surmountable.
DaBomb
@Nick: Amen to that.
Or how about people following around a store, because they think you are about to steal something.
Or have someone assume that you are on welfare.
Or have someone tell you to your face that you are mentally inferior to them, because this study by some scientist says so…
I have always said that I am for civil rights for everyone. I hope that is achieved. I am just not going to flame the President about a vote held on state level.
gbear
@Nick:
Nick, I want you to be able to walk down the street in peace and have a hassle-free relationship. That is what I really and truely want for you. I want all the jerks to wake up.
I also want the building that The Family lives in to be hit by a small asteroid. I will believe in god if that happens.
Other than the asteroid, Peace.
jcricket
@Elie: Well, to be fair, the right-wing “grass roots” has only been lobbying for “monied interest” type stuff (like stopping healthcare, or denying global warming) in recent years. Most of their advocacy was retrograde social stuff that benefits religious bigots, mainly.
I think it’s a myth to think the leftie grass-roots have it that much harder. We’re more diverse – which does make it harder to rally around a single thing (like opposition to abortion for wingers) – but we’re also just lazier and prone to “taking our ball and going home”.
About 30 years ago the right-wing decided that no matter the outcome, they’d support the GOP – and when supporting the GOP turned out to only get lip-service to their right-wing beliefs, they pushed harder, supported primary challengers, took over talk radio, etc.
We’ve come a long way with the gains in the blogosphere, MoveOn, OFA, etc. – but we still have an annoying tendency to impose internal “purity tests” that are as silly as the ones proposed by the GOP right now. If we don’t like the Democrats we’ve elected, we can keep pushing them to the left, but only if we’re considered their constituency. If we go all “we’re voting for Nader” that will accomplish nothing. In fact, it will (stupidly enough) drive the Democrats further to the right as they search for voters they can connect with.
arguingwithsignposts
@gbear:
Well, we can agree on this.
jcricket
@gwangung: That is fair enough – I should have followed through. But in NY there is no initiative process. Short of recalling a bunch of Dems, or Republicans suddenly winning back the NY State Senate and the governorship (both are not happening), if the Dems voted for it, Patterson signed it, that would be it.
So in that instance, it’s basically Dem spinelessness, or immorality if they actually oppose gay marriage, that created this situation.
But overall it will have to be state-level gains, and not all will be equal (“all but marriage” in WA state, gay marriage in NY, only domestic partnership rights but no adoption in Utah, etc) for a while. But all progress is progress. It’ll change real lives, change hearts and minds, etc.
The only “good thing” about all this is Republicans are doubling down and embracing bigotry as a core value. Dems may not be universally on the right side of history yet, but we will be. It’s like with the civil rights issue, where it took a long time to shake off the racist Dixiecrats, and it hurt us electorally for a while when those folks became Republicans, but was the right thing to do and has worked out demographically over the longer-haul for us.
Nick
@gbear: yeah we all want that, but reality is, every piece of gay rights legislation can pass and you’ll still be harassed for walking down the street holding hands with your partner. That won’t change whether Obama sits on his hands or puts on a rainbow colored dress and rides a float full of drag queens down Castro Street.
More than 30 years after interracial marriage was legalized, and in a county that voted 53% for a black man for President, in a congressional district represented by a liberal, I had to clean shaving cream off my windshield that someone used to spell out the words “babboon f*cker”
jcricket
@Cerberus: So I agree and disagree. I think being disappointed at the lack of progress/speed is OK. Threatening to withhold money is OK too. As long as it’s a tactic to get people to pay attention to you.
Sometimes, if you are taken for granted, you need to make it clear your support/vote/participation is not a “given”.
If, on the other hand, it’s unrealistic expectations of perfection and instantaneous fixing of everything that’s bad, that’s lame.
For me it’s like healthcare. Above all, I want a bill to be passed. But I really want a good bill. If Dems pass a shitty bill I reserve the right to be fucking mad as hell. I won’t suddenly be voting GOP, but I will sure as hell be agitating for my Dems to fix the healthcare system some more.
I think most gays are in that position. Mad, frustrated, personally disappointed, and wanting to be heard.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Can I just apologize for my species here? Ditto for @gbear.
Cerberus
@silentbeep:
The same thing we do every day and will have to do for the end of the days:
Push at the Overton Window constantly especially in communication with friends, family, and the internet.
Funnel money to positive progressive movements that you support, volunteer where you can for allied progressive movements as well as your own, badger elected officials until we can outnumber the megachurch pass around the phone style initiatives.
Vocally express support for genuine progressive legislation. Criticize bills that fall short, but also point out good qualities publicly and argue passionately for what is right. Also, celebrate wins, they will be hard-won and often bittersweet, but if you can’t celebrate wins, you just end up turned off from any political action and slowly devolve into a republican or a libertarian douchebag.
On elections, fund the most progressive people in nationwide races, primary non-progressive legislators in districts where a progressive can win, Where it can’t, go door-to-door on behalf of progressive caucuses and radicalize the population until they can. Run oneself in local districts and pay attention to local politics. This is where the conservative whackjobs focused for years to destroy the Overton window so badly and fuck up the things that people look to for broad opinions on things like “does the government work” and “is diversity good”.
In general, speak towards the moon generally and point out specific aspects in one-to-one conversations. Also, hammer home on things like Churches and astroturfing efforts and most importantly hammer it home especially on elected officials to steady their nerves.
And always get kids voting. Conservadems tack to the right because they assume all the dems will just stay home next election so they don’t think they need to shore up any votes with them. We need to remind youth their votes matter and if they don’t like a dem to primary him, even if it’s just a write-in campaign.
And if they don’t like that, to support movements for movements in states that allow referenda for con amends to restructure the state parliamentarily or to support general progressive issue movements like gay rights, pro-choice, civil rights, environmentalism, etc…
Same as it ever was in other words. The guy on the top is only as good as we are. When we elected him we were only getting one thing. Someone who actually will listen to US on top of the usual beltway chatter and Republican memes of the day. We need to use that power and further recognize that he could be MLK Jr himself but it wouldn’t matter one whit if our legislature is still dysfunctional. It all comes down to for all eternity:
More and better democrats. Until we get to a point where Stupak can’t lead a conservadem riot for just enough fucktards or where Lieberman can’t hold up legislation just cause, we won’t see an avalanche of progressive legislation or even much progressive legislation. It’s not fair, but it has to be a marathon if we want to win.
Michael D.
@gbear: I absolutely believe that the commenters here want each of us to have the same rights as them. I also believe that it is more important to them to have Democrats elected, and not risk a primary run, than it is to criticize Democrats when they don’t fulfill their promises. They believe that getting Democrats elected will get them everything they want. But it never happens.
Here’s the way it works.
Everyone: “Gay rights now! Gay rights now!!”
Democrat gets elected to office
Gays: “Ahmmmm, hello???”
Supposed Supporters: “Calm down, it will happen eventually”
Doesn’t happen
Next election:
Everyone: “Gay rights now! Gay rights now!!”
Democrat gets elected to office
Gays: “Ahmmmm, hello???”
Supposed Supporters: “Calm down, it will happen eventually”
Doesn’t happen
Supposed Supporters: “But electing Democrats is the only way it will happen.”
And when you point this out, you’re inundated with comments that tell you how much they support you, but that Obama has a lot on his plate and etc. and that they really support you but that you’re not a big priotity because, OMG, there’s a financial thing and a war and the Olympics, and shit.
Whatever.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
Fuck you too, asshole.
Michael D.
Or, you’re told “Fuck you, asshole”
Because that’s what it really comes down to. That’s how important you are.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
And since I don’t have the edit button:
I don’t know what shit you’re smoking, but I really don’t know any BJ commenter who believe’s that line, so … whatever right back atcha.
gwangung
@jcricket: This is informative to me, because in all the states I’ve lived in, the referendum/initiative process is very prominent (and based on what’s been said, it definitely is Democratic spinlessness in NY).
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
It’s “fuck you *too* asshole.” get it straight, or don’t get it at all.
joe from Lowell
And who should wait in your stead?
People without health care?
People without jobs?
Go ahead, throw it out there. What part of Obama’s legislative agenda to date do you push off until next year for DADT?
Perhaps we should have made the entire first year of Barack Obama’s presidency about three consecutive huge gay rights fights (because, after all, you would no doubt feel pissed if, say, ENDA was passed, but you had to wait for DADT and DOMA repeal. Waiting for your rights, can’t have that), so that he didn’t get the chance to pass any more of a legislative agenda, because the Democrats get wiped out in 2010, and Obama loses in 2012. How dare we talk about political reality? We need to put you first!
There really are people who are going to hold a grudge for the rest of their lives if Obama and the Democrats do ENDA in year 3, aren’t there?
Elie
@gbear:
How should we talk to you then?
Those of us who support full rights for everyone — how do you give support without seeming condescending? It seems to me if you are looking for a reason to be angry with people who generally support what you want, you are putting out a test that we can only disappoint you. Who wants to reach out to someone contigent on passing the egg shell test?
At some point, gbear, despite the hurt, dont you have to give over to some optimism and less suspicion that just everyone really hates you and wishes for you to “sit down and shut up”?
Being a black woman, I know a little of what you feel at different points and Lord knows, I have experienced more than a little over my lifetime. But I have felt better letting some it go — not seeing with narrowed eyed suspicion every off center comment as another attempt to put me down..
Its a journey that I certainly in no way want to lecture you about in any way. It is very personal and very experiential. Still, think about testing, and what it means to be doing that a lot with folks who you know are generally going to be on your side.
Michael D.
@arguingwithsignposts: Gotcha, AWS. I know my place.
Cerberus
@jcricket:
I actually agree and don’t want to imply that I think it’s wrong to be angry over lack of progress or slow progress. Being angry is a great way to move the Overton Window. I also believe that using money effectively is a great short-term tool both to maximize returns but to train conservadems to actually give a fuck about their base once in a while rather than working to depress their base’s turnout by constantly being a giant disappointment.
But I just get frustrated sometimes by the crap that tries to sneak in sometimes. You got to applaud successes otherwise there’s no carrot to entice. If you are angrily moving the Overton Window, but not sending any support for victories, then what’s the worth in supporting anything when you’ve apparently lost the constituency no matter what?
And you’ve always got to vote the lesser of two evils at the end of the day. In the gay community, there’s a bunch of half-racists right now thanks to this type of crap who are going the full Nader of dems and repukes are all the same, despite the crystal clear evidence that this isn’t true. Cowardly and sane is not the same as evil and insane no matter how cowardly the former is. And when you see things like NY where yes 8 dems went against, but EVERY republican went against as well, it’s hard to accept their myopic bullshit in the day-in, day-out.
celticdragon
@Splitting Image:
Senator Chuck Durbin has already said that reviewing DADT may have to wait until 2011 or later.
Nobody will tackle it in an election year.
Michael D.
@joe from Lowell:
Is this a serious point?
If so, then what’s more important? Healthcare or people without jobs. I think healthcare. People without jobs can wait, because Obama has too much on his plate to deal with jobs right now.
Is that a good enough argument for denying people job assistance?
Thanks! Because that makes all my political arguments for what the administration should be doing or not doing SO MUCH easier!
celticdragon
@joe from Lowell:
I’m sorry. I thought this was the President who said he can walk and chew gum at the same time.
My bad.
You know, if we can’t get in line for our own priorities, than why do we need to worry about yours?
I am finishing up an African American history class right now, and the excuses for incrementalism, the delays, the bigotry and the anger look depressingly identical.
Elie
@Cerberus:
Your eloquence is amazing and powerful.
We need your leadership so much in this country! Hopefully you are active in your community and in politics…
You are so right. Its not about just winning winning — its going through the process — the learning and movement from that learning and growth of understanding..
My husband and I work on small local issues — clean water and ecologocal issues. We have seen relationships that we developed with folks in these areas spill over into other related and important areas. That trust gets built.
It is not always easy or fast but its just amazing when those connections happen and you and a group of folks you would have never dreamed of, get something very important done..Nothing — nothing like it…
Michael D.
@celticdragon:
FTW.
celticdragon
@Nick:
Christ in heaven.
I have no words for that.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
your WATB routine is old. Most of the comments here actually *support* your position!
Why don’t you prioritize things for us, since you’re so fucking smart? Tell us what should go first:
DADT
DOMA
ENDA
Iraq
AfPak
Iran
North Korea
Economy
Health Care
Guantamo
Extraordinary Rendition
Unitary Executive
Your *place* is the same as anyone else who’s trying to get their agenda passed. At the table. I haven’t seen sufficient evidence that LGBT players aren’t at the table. For 10 1/2 months. Maybe you’d prefer a McCain administration?
Cerberus
@Michael D.:
And an illustration of what I was talking about.
“Gay rights now!”
“We’re a fucked up coalition, here’s what we were able to pass so far, the others are coming as soon as we can, but we do have conservadems and the republicans really hate you guys!”
“Noooooo! I wanted the red dolly!”
Gay Rights Now! Yes, we’ve got some. Brand spanking new after decades of delay by the all-out war of the conservative movement. We now have federal hate crimes legislation already critical in Puerto Rico to find Jorge’s killer. But to you, that doesn’t count. That’s not actually a gay right, apparently. It didn’t happen and thus democrats must be the same as republicans.
In NY, 24 democrats voted for us, 12 democrats gave impassioned speeches imploring on their communities to support us in all endeavors. 0 republicans did. Did it succeed? No, but that just means, more and better dems as always looking quite frankly at the raw numbers.
Are there conservadems? Are there democrats who are just barely better than republicans? Of course, this is the problem of having a party of sane people versus insane people. Some of the sane people are still corrupt or scared of evil or slightly evil or insane themselves. Every coalition member has been fucked by a conservadem at one time or another. It’s because conservadems are CONSERVATIVE and thus fuckers.
Thus, we need more and better democrats to offset the fact that some of the ones we got are just…better than the alternative, but not much else.
That’s not a democrat problem, per se, as they wouldn’t matter if there were also sane republicans able to vote in the opposite direction.
There aren’t.
Calming Influence
@arguingwithsignposts:
You’re kidding, right?
celticdragon
With that, I am calling it a night.
Tomorrow I get to present a powerpoint in structural geology on Refrigeration of the Cordilleran lithosphere during the Laramide Orogeny.
That ought to put everybody to sleep, heh!
joe from Lowell
Deadly fucking serious. Your complaint is that your pet issue – which is a fine issue, and one I strongly support – didn’t make the cut for year 1. OK, who do you cut instead?
Is this a serious point? ARRA passed six months ago. You realize that, right?
Why are you pretending that they can’t both be done in the first year, when they are both being done in the first year?
Your point doesn’t make any sense. There actually is a limit to how much the administration can get done in its first legislative year, but having to choose between health care and the economy has, fortunately, not been necessary.
gwangung
@celticdragon: Not a former geologist. That actually made sense to me (even after 30 years).
arguingwithsignposts
@Calming Influence:
I’m just getting riled up a bit. If I met Michael D., and if he’d have me, we’d drink a beer and (hopefully) settle this amicably.
I curse at the ignorance of our elected officials and their knuckle-dragging so much that it’s a little off-putting to get hit from the left.
joe from Lowell
Are you a moron, or a freshman? This is seriously you’re argument – that there is no limit to how much of a legislative agenda a president can push?
“My priorities?” What kind of douchery is that? No, chief, avoiding a depression and passing health care reform are not pet issues. They are not “my priorities.” Gee, do you think you could be a little more self-centered?
I’m sure they do. They probably won’t went you hit 19, and get a little perspective.
Michael D.
@arguingwithsignposts: Your last sentence is telling. Might as well say, “Hey, you’re getting what you get. Would you rather McCain???”
Fuck that lazy argument.
You were better when you were pretending to be depressed and looking for everyone to give you attention.
Cerberus
@Cerberus:
Addendum to say, I like “Gay Rights Now!”, I advocate constantly for gay rights now, but part of gay rights now is also basking in the victories. Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, DC by year end. A fleet of city non-discrimination laws (including fucking Charleston SC, everything but marriage DPs in WA (upheld by the voters), civil unions in NV, a host of gay candidates elected to a number of SOUTHERN city councils and mayorships including likely in Houston, which would be huge.
Gay rights now! Damn straight. Look what we have won. With our coalitions among democrats and fierce effort on our part instead of taking our ball and going home because conservadems exist or shit like NY or ME occur.
We will be winning and the avalanche of rights has just begun…
If we keep up the momentum and the alliances that have served us well. And if we demand it rain or shine and trumpet the victories we make to remind ourselves it is not a Sisyphean task we undergo.
General Winfield Stuck
Like I said. A nice calm ghey rights thread to settle stuff down.
ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Michael D.
@General Winfield Stuck: Can’t help myself on threads like this. Sorry.
joe from Lowell
Do you two know how insane you are?
You are shrieking these things at people who support gay marriage, who would repeal DADT tomorrow if they had their druthers.
But we’re fucking persecuting you, because we won’t agree that your particular issue needs to come first.
Right.
gwangung
@General Winfield Stuck: If we can’t laugh at ourselves, we probably can’t get our agenda done…
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
Man, you really are digging into the ad hominem tonight, aren’t you?
Would you care to look into my soul and see the “pretend depression”?
I tried to be amicable about this earlier, but I honestly don’t know what to say to that.
BTW, you didn’t answer the fucking question, douchebag.
Michael D.
@joe from Lowell: We’ve been told we don’t come first for 40 years.
Calming Influence
@joe from Lowell:
Pet issue?
A pet issue is “more funding for the arts”.
A pet issue is “flowers planted in all the highway medians”.
A pet issue is “gays should be allowed to prance down the street in colorful parades”.
How about this “pet issue”: “You volunteered to serve in the U.S. military, and you risked your life in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Oh, wait – your gay? Get the fuck out.”
gwangung
@Michael D.: Ghod, I hope this doesn’t start another round of the Oppression Olympics…
Michael D.
You now what pisses me off? Out of the 28,000 people who read this blog on a daily basis, TEN of you write or call your congresscritter about gay rights.
And SEVEN of you are gay.
Michael D.
@gwangung: Nope. I’m just tired of being told to wait in line. I always get bumped.
joe from Lowell
Man, can you imagine if it had only been 40 years since universal health care was first proposed?
If universal health care was passed in the late 1980s, after a mere 40 years, that would have been one of the most remarkable political developments in American history.
Gay rights has come farther, faster, than any other issue I can imagine. Remember when Howard Dean was a gay-rights hero for signing a mere civil unions bill? Now, people who argue for civil unions are the conservatives.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
And this is a second “Fuck you” for that comment. I didn’t go digging through your previous comments to discuss this issue with you. I don’t appreciate you slinging shit because it scores cheap points either. That’s troll-like behavior.
Fuck you. There’s a third.
I’m done. I hope you get what you wish – full equality. But it won’t be because I’m wanting it for your sorry ass.
Cerberus
@Michael D.:
Michael, I understand where you are coming from and I’m right there with you. It pains me to see conservative memes survive even when there’s only forty repukes in the senate. It pains me that everything progressive requires all our effort whereas even the most twisted conservative bullshit seems to just slide by on the shared delusions of the Rapturist cultists.
It sucks that we are literally working against the entire entrenched media who dominate the discourse to drag the Overton window back to something approaching sanity. It sucks that a handful of conservadems can fuck up a glorious advantage.
It sucks and that’s no lie.
But Obama got hate crimes passed, is providing benefits to state employees, publicly supports our legislation, is not trying to home rule DC’s marriage equality bill and has federally enacted a whole bunch of stuff critical for HIV poz queers and others. And more IS on its way if we keep the pressure up.
He’s not flawless, hell he’s not even a Gov. Baldacci on this issue and many ways and by all means we should hammer him from the left as often as we can to remind him where sanity is in the beltway fog.
But yes, he is a HELL of a lot better than Sen. McCain and VP Sarah “can’t we just stone the faggots and be done with it” Palin.
joe from Lowell
I’m sorry, 45,000 Americans died because they didn’t have health insurance last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.
Unemployment is at 10%.
So…you were saying? Oh, right – DADT sucks. But I already knew that. I’m going to be so psyched when it gets repealed in a year.
Michael D.
@Cerberus: Obama is Santa Claus compared to McCain! OBVIOUSLY! But I will take issue with this:
Obama did not get hate crimes passed. Congress finally did and he signed it. I would not expect less. He did do an executive order for federal employees. Yay! And the HIV stuff, as far as immigraion and visitors go, was a Bush administration thing that Obama had nothing to do with, as much as we might like to believe it.
gwangung
I think it would do everyone on the thread good if we had a common action we could. If we all could give the local bishop in Maine or some NY state senators a sharp poke in the snoot, we’d all feel a helluva lot better.
Elie
@General Winfield Stuck:
Ha,ha,ha,ha…kindapainful though. Don’t fully understand this fight among ourselves about this…
joe from Lowell
I’ve talked to my state rep about gay marriage, right around when the Massachusetts legislature was considering putting repeal on the ballot.
My state rep stuck his neck out on the very first vote, and took a lot of crap for it, so I made sure to know there were people in his district who had his back. Then, he swung another state rep in my city, and the proposal was defeated.
None of this makes ENDA important enough to jam in ahead of health care reform in Obama’s first year.
Cerberus
@Michael D.:
40 years ago, it was politically acceptable to openly call for our extermination and hope that the “Gay Plague” wiped us out. On this there was bipartisan consensus, 40 years ago. It’s not like, they’ve been going, gosh, we’d like to give you marriage rights 40 years ago and are only now fucking with us.
Things used to be a LOT worse, progressive legislation has made it slightly better, slightly more safe to come out and be out, but the work isn’t done. Additional progressive legislation is needed. Some of which passed this year.
@joe from Lowell:
Yeah, it’s a great and glorious thing. I suspect that’s also why things sometimes seem like they’re imploding in the gay community. I suspect that we’re entering that “any day now phase” where our members start snapping because we are so very close to having a massive leap forward in rights. So close we can taste it, but the conservative short term war and fear campaign keeps preventing us from chomping down.
It makes some of us lose perspective and the ability to note why we are here, where here is, and what we’ve been winning on the way to the point where the rock seems to roll downhill.
gwangung
@Elie: Incipient circular firing squad syndrome?
Elie
@gwangung:
Yep
Hope no one really gets too pissed and hurt. Its ok to spar and wrestle with your brother, but ya gotta know when to say when.
How much is anyone getting from this? Doesn’t seem like there is much learning or hearing going on..
Cerberus
@Michael D.:
Oh I’m sorry, Mike, I thought you were counting congress’s inaction as Obama’s fuckup, seeing as how you won’t SHUT UP about DADT.
You can’t have it both ways Mike. Either Obama is to blame for DADT being stalled or he is to be supported for the behind-the-scenes efforts and negotiations as well as strong support and encouragement of the Federal Hate Crimes Legislation.
And this is what bothers me as a queer person. There are a bunch of gay men who seem to be focusing only on the negative in Obama and the democratic party and erasing the good. Who want to blame him for every delay, but claim he had no input in any success.
You can’t play it that way. DADT, ENDA, and DOMA are either out of his hands or you have to admit that that bill you don’t give a shit about but I do The Matthew Shepard and Larry Bird Jr Act owes some debt at least to the ability that when it arrived on his desk, he not only signed it, but he waved it in front of the nation like the historic piece of legislation it was. The first federal law to include gender identity, massive increases in protection and law enforcement for lgbt individuals, and greater recogntion of sexual orientation and gender identity as suspect classes.
And he supported that from the campaign on up and in the background on up. And his speech brought tears to my eyes out of happiness.
But that doesn’t matter, because, right? But DADT? Totally his fault and his fault alone because he isn’t issuing a highly problematic order that would lend credibility to one of Bush’s most noxious war-time inventions.
I think I see how this works now.
Cerberus
@gwangung:
We’re liberals. It’s what we do.
It’s the side effect of the fact that conservatism is the movement of conformity of white male, heterosexual christian dominance and hatred of diversity, of lockstep proto-fascism.
Thus, liberalism is the movement that not only accepts, but promotes diversity. Diversity of life experiences, of viewpoints, of forms of thought, of what we consider most important, and what we take most personally.
We are anti-authoritarian cats and thus we differ from each other, often in the details and often we can get lost there forgetting entirely of the army of killer mutated sheep that’d gladly see us all die together.
We disagree, often constantly, and from there we fight and from there we brawl and shoot ourselves.
It’s what we do. It’s the price to pay for being on the side of right, of freedom, and of diversity.
In short, we’re crazy in the good way.
Cerberus
@Cerberus:
James Byrd Jr, I meant. Damnitt.
Elie
@Cerberus:
:-) – nice!
Goodnight all
Yutsano
You know what pisses me off more than anything? Gay folks screaming about how they want DADT to end with no fucking skin in the game. This issue affects me directly. Not only is one of the most special people in my life a Marine, but one of the dearest friends I have is an Army officer. The oppression of DADT affects their lives every single day. Yet they still serve proudly even without seeing the end in sight. Why? Cause serving their country is more fucking important to them than being open about their sexuality. I have zero doubt they’d be doing what they’re doing even without DADT. They were both called to it even though they both could have taken very different paths in their lives. It just irks me to no end how others see this as an abstraction when it affects MY life. And you know what? It’s gonna end some day. Even if it’s not tomorrow. My Dawg won’t be the first queer in the Marines. He sure as shit won’t be the last. He’s still a proud Marine even despite DADT. Just about every gay soldier is fucking proud of what they do.
Cerberus
@Yutsano:
I can sympathize. I don’t actually have any skin in the DADT game and I’m sorry if I came off flippant in my flippant response to Michael D, but I support it as a cause of just moral imperative. People shouldn’t have to hide who they are just to do what they love even if they are doing that anyway.
But yes, it will end, just as we will have marriage equality, and inclusive ENDA throughout the land. And I will raise a glass to people like your loved ones when they do. We are all a family even if we do a lot of bitching at each other (both lgbts and liberals in general).
And with that, let’s trigger a group hug!
Irony Abounds
40 years ago? Hell, just look at 15 years ago. Virtually no progress had been made. Remember the firestorm over Clinton’s actions early in his term to deal with the gay ban in the military? Damn near fucked up his entire first term, and it was a contributing factor in the Repubs gaining control of Congress. Now, momentum on gay rights is steadily increasing – did anyone realistically think even 10 years ago that gay marriage would be as far along as it is now? Yes there have been setbacks, but progress is steadily being made.
Michael D: Apparently Obama is not entitled to get any credit for the hate crimes legislation because it came from Congress, yet deserves the blame for not overturning legislation that Congress needs to overturn. A tad inconsistent I’d say.
Yutsano
@Cerberus: Actually I wasn’t really directing that at you inasmuch as to the general gay community who are demanding its end without realizing this affects real lives. I didn’t mean to seem harsh. If anything I was yelling at Michael D. for screaming at the supposed ineffectiveness of the Obama administration. The areas that Obama has disappointed me have little to do with gay rights issues. Oh and I want Michael D. to provide a link that Bush was indeed going to end the HIV ban because I haven’t heard a single fucking thing about that.
jcricket
@Irony Abounds: The best part about what’s happening, and it’s almost invisible, is that it’s creating a brighter line between the Republicans and (well) everyone else. I’ve never believed Republicans and Democrats are identical, and hate anyone who suggests that, but it helps to have easy identifiers to determine who you should vote for.
For example, Republicans could remain “neutral” on gay rights, allowing their members to vote whichever way they felt like it. Instead they are insisting that opposition to gay rights & gay marriage & gay adoption (& so on) are 100% required to be considered a Republican. Moreover, this is a “last stand for civilization” and the passage of gay rights is the “end of the world as we know it”.
Republicans have made the line clear (witness 0 Republicans in NY voting in favor of gay marriage) – and it’s already killing their long-term political fortunes (like it did with their full-throated opposition to civil rights). This kind of “ending up on the wrong side of history” will do more to hasten the inevitability of progressive legislation than Democrats winning on their own right now, because of how lame we are at articulating the positive case for voting for us. Call it the victory of demographics over nihilism.
My own mom, whom I can remember saying “your gay uncle is fine, and i like that he isn’t so in your face” less than a decade ago is now calling people in support of gay marriage. My dad’s less vocal, but votes the same way. And these are “Reagan Democrats” – who will never vote for a Republican again (state or federal level) unless the party is entirely different than they are now (not likely).
Yes, there’s a depressingly large segment (30%?) of angry and loud voters that can be mobilized to great impact – but their numbers aren’t increasing, and a lot of them will die off within 10-20 years.
jcricket
Sorry, this was too funny not to copy over here. From a commenter at Ta-Nahesi Coates, regarding gay marriage:
DaBomb
@Yutsano: I have encountered that the HIV/AIDS ban lift was Bush’s idea on AmericaBlog.
When I stated some of the progress Obama has made towards gay rights, I was told they were “gestures”.
If that’s the case, who is the last President that has extended a gesture to progressing gay rights?
Yutsano
@DaBomb: An idea is not the same as concrete action. Plus if the policy was a Bush idea or priority, why did nothing come of it until October? Doesn’t that require at least some action on Obama’s part? The HIV ban has been a majorly stupid idea since Reagan instigated it. It’s not a fresh or original Bushism. The fact that this happened under Obama is sufficient enough for him to get the credit.
FlipYrWhig
I’m sure there’s an aggravating sense of caution on LGBT issues coming from this administration, and I didn’t read everything in this thread, but here’s another factor. One thing that Obama’s Clinton administration veterans certainly remember is that gays-in-the-military _was_ moved to the front of the line, and it blew up, and it led to a round of “Is This Presidency Doomed?” Which, because these things are self-fulfilling, jacked up the entire first Clinton term. Because political journalists LOVE the “momentum” story. Lose a policy battle and you’re setting yourself up to lose the next one and the one after that. Win one and you’re setting yourself up to win the next one, in theory, but the media loves to smell blood.
So the moment to push LGBT issues has to be damn well chosen. Because it’s never going to be a slam dunk, at least not until the oldest dopiest teabaggin’est generation dies. And that means that failing on a push for LGBT rights — worthwhile as they are and ludicrous though it may be that we live in a country with stupid politics — could mean failing on _everything else ambitious or controversial_ for the foreseeable future.
DaBomb
@Yutsano: I completely agree. But there are plenty over on AmericaBlog who would abhorrently disagree with your logic.
Zuzu's Petals
Savage’s description of the DoJ’s defense of DOMA is disingenuous, to say the least.
THIS is what Savage calls “arguing that the federal government has a rational basis to ban gay marriage for the same reasons it bans incest and child rape”:
Note that this comes under the Full Faith and Credit Clause argument, not the rational basis standard of review argument.
(BTW, is marriage at 16 considered child rape?)
gbear
Well, that plus the republicans were accusing the Clintons of murdering a business partner and trying to impeach him. And plus the first shot at “Hillarycare’ health care reform. Otherwise it was mostly because of DADT.
Nick
@Michael D.:
So by the same logic, Obama is not responsible for DADT, ENDA or DOMA. I think your beef is with Nancy Pelosi then.
Nick
@silentbeep:
That hurt progressives more than it did Al Gore. The lesson from that is progressives better pick the lesser of two evils becasue the worse of the two evils could be infinitately bad.
Nick
@Michael D.:
They are then complete morons who have a negative 3 understanding of politics.
If you’re liberal you elect Democrats so that your issues will have a chance to get addressed and maybe you’ll get what you want.
John Cole
I’ve changed. I think about things, and when I am wrong, I change the way I think about things.
I don’t know how else to go about it.
DaBomb
@Zuzu’s Petals: Yep, there’s that too. We had a discussion about this on the blog a long time ago. Lawdork.net implied that th interpretation being pushed by John Aravosis and Dan Savage was pretty misleading.
Nick
@Michael D.:
Join the fucking club. You’re not the only ones who have been trying to get something through our government for decades.
Zuzu's Petals
@DaBomb:
Yes. And I didn’t mean to imply that it was only misleading because he described it as a “rational basis” argument when it was really a Full Faith and Credit argument. I think his entire premise is misleading.
Comrade Kevin
@John Cole:
You have, but there are commenters here who will push gay rights to the back of the line every single time, say there are more important things for the president and congress to be working on. I don’t know what to say to gay people about that.
Little Macayla's Friend
@FlipYrWhig:
I hope you get a chance to at least read the comments from Cerberus, or bookmark this post for later.
And I learned a lot from every other comment too, passions included.
Thanks.
Midnight Marauder
Wow, I just finished perusing this ditty and I have to say, it was pretty much everything I expected. Except for the fact that Michael D. was extra dickish tonight with that cheap shot at AWS. That was disturbingly cold.
With that said, here’s a point that I feel gets left out a lot in these discussions, particularly in regards to DOMA and the “FUCK THE DOJ” shenanigans. How much of Holder’s DOJ is still made up of Bush/Cheney people? I can’t find/remember any of the links I’ve read recently about the matter, but I believe it’s a pretty substantial number. And, more importantly, those are the people who wrote that infamous brief that gets Dan Savage all
ignorant and nonsensicalhot and bothered. Those are also the same assholes trying to push that bogus New Black Panthers “voter intimidation” case in Pennsylvania from the election last fall (TPM has a lot on this, I believe.) So please, let’s not act like Obama somehow staffed the DOJ with a bunch of vengeful gay-haters. That is just insane to even consider as a serious idea.So, again, this is something that I feel needs to be added to the greater perspective discussed here. We all know that Obama has a record number of vacancies in a vast array of areas in the government because of Obstructionist Assholes. If the President of the United States can’t even get his goddamn Surgeon General confirmed in the middle of a GODDAMN SWINE FLU EPIDEMIC, what makes you think he can get the DOJ rockin’ and rollin’ with a bunch of DFHs ready to toss out gay rights like Js at a Phish concert?
I swear it was like an army of Wolf Blitzers had taken over this thread at points while I was reading it. Some of you motherfuckers are just WATBs to the extreme. I mean, WOW. When they talk about WATBs, you are exactly what they are talking about.
slightly_peeved
So, apparently, stigmatization of gay people – must be fought by Obama at every turn.
Stigmatization of the mentally ill – hey! Sign me up!
I mean, you want to look at another group that’s still getting shunned, mistreated and marginalized, look at sufferers of depression and mental illness.
Cerberus’s posts are excellent, though.
DecidedFenceSitter
Hey Michael. Here’s my thoughts on the matter – Fuck you.
No, not for the fact that you yell so loudly on this issue. That’s necessary for movement to happen. You need the screamers like yourself as much as you need the quiet voices like Cerebus. That’s how change happens.
Now I’ll join the fuckin’ chorus of “Wait, so anything that does happen during Obama’s administration is because of other people; but anything that doesn’t happen is because Obama doesn’t love the gay causes enough.”
Let’s be utterly cynical here for a moment, why should he? You obviously don’t have enough actual support to move things, by your own admission “Only 10 of you will actually contact your representative, and 7 of you will be gay.” (Or something like that) If that’s the truth then where’s the upside for him to go out on a limb?
The gay community seems to be divided (as witnessed by the voting for McCain and Palin) as to whether gay rights is a primary issue or not. So there’s lesson reason to burn yourself.
And yeah, I bet Obama would rather do gay rights stuff rather than Afghanistan. But he doesn’t have that choice. When we get to Federal spending there are two piles – discretionary and non-discretionary. The latter is stuff the Federal gov’t is going to spend money on. The former is the stuff that is actually available for cuts.
Well – time is like that too. There’s non-discretionary time that he’s going to focus on. And right now there’s huge chunks of that stuff going on. Then there’s the discretionary time he can spend time on. And ayup, all those people yelling – they are right, he isn’t making gay civil rights his primary or secondary goal. It is, at best a tertiary goal.
So yeah, keep yelling, keep firing people up. But don’t be surprised when it takes longer than a year or two, when a fundamentally centrist/sanely conservative president doesn’t rock the boat. If you wanted something more, you should have worked harder to get Kucinich or someone else, who is actually progressive, into the President’s chair. Don’t be surprised when voting for the half-loaf option when you get a half-loaf.
—
That being said. Michael, that cheap parting shot at AWS “You were better when you were pretending to be depressed and looking for everyone to give you attention.”
Fuck off. If you’ve got proof he was pretending, I’ll retract. But otherwise, fuck off. I’m resisting saying something along the lines of “and die” because I don’t want you dead. I just want you trapped in depression, unable to see your way out. I want your life to be as bleak as any clinically depressed person.
That way you get some empathy for how someone other than yourself sees the goddamn world.
dan robinson
Oh, fer chrissake, in terms of the the things that are fucked up, gay rights are way down the list. It deserves action, but don’t get he vapors because it isn’t happening right now.
Just Some Fuckhead
I thought Michael D.’s shot at AWS was the highlight of the thread and really helped set this thread apart from the last fifty ghey threads.
Rick Taylor
I’m not sure what conclusions to draw. But when advocates for a cause make misleading inflammatory arguments (the justice department compared homosexuality to child rape), I distrust the rest of their arguments.
Barry
Rick Taylor
“I’m not sure what conclusions to draw. But when advocates for a cause make misleading inflammatory arguments (the justice department compared homosexuality to child rape), I distrust the rest of their arguments.”
I’d also note their f*cking names, and make sure that they’d never live that down. If they’re up for an academic position, I’d make sure that they didn’t get it; if they’re up for a job, I’d put as much pressure on that company as possible.
I think what a lot of left/liberal groups suffer from is a perception that they’re not dangerous. Perhaps they need a few heads on sticks.
Barry
I think that Obama is repeating one of Clinton’s biggest mistakes, which is taking the base for granted, and buying off ‘centrists’. After a while, the base realizes that the rewards are not there for support. It’s like the right’s attitude towards money – trillions for wars, trillions for the rich, but nothing for anybody else.
In this case, it also looks that great thing on his plate – healthcare reform – will turn out to be at best a ‘blah’ dish.
Most likely it will be a ‘reform’, which screws over most Americans, and pumps more money into the insurance companies.
In which case Obama is firmly on a course for destruction.
I would say that he’ll be re-elected due to the GOP putting up the most hideous candidate possible in 2012, but given (1) a near-depression economy, (2) a well-deserved reputation for not doing jack sh*t for most Americans while helping the rich, (3) the base 45% hatred level against *any* Democratic president, (4) an elite MSM which will eagerly f*ck over *any* Democratic president, Obama might manage that.
At best he’s on a course to be b*tch-slapped happily by the GOP for the rest of his time in office (where ‘the GOP’ includes several nominally democratic senators).
I understand selling out people, but what puzzles me is that he’s selling out to people who’ll take what he’s selling, and then not pay.
tripletee
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Every ghey thread should have at least one heinous, breathtakingly mean cheap shot from a whiny, solipsistic glibertarian.
Just Some Fuckhead
@tripletee:
It wasn’t that bad. One man’s desperate attempt to find a reason to live is another man’s queered thread.
gex
I don’t know how you can deny that Savage and the gay community have a right to be pissed. But you managed to for a long time (until legislation in Maine was overturned by referendum), so maybe you should enlighten us.
Zuzu's Petals
@Barry:
I think he was saying the advocates who claimed DoJ compared homosexuality to child rape were making a misleading argument.
Rick Taylor
@Zuzu’s Petals:
That is exactly what I was saying.
Jack Roy
Echoing Rick Taylor, the “Obama compared homosexuals to incestuous child rapists!” line is complete bullshit. And it’s important to recognize it as bullshit. I excuse Dan Savage because he’s not a lawyer, and because I’m pretty sure he got his information from John Aravosis’s simply awful posts on the subject, but I do not excuse Aravosis, who is a lawyer and most certainly knows better, and who deliberately wrote a completely misleading brief on the administration’s position in a fit of spite. (As I recall it, it was a temper tantrum over really small beer, too: namely, Obama declining to take the extraordinary step of refusing to argue a federal law’s constitutionality in federal court. Technical issue of interest likely only to lawyers, but there you go.)
This doesn’t change the punchline, because I have to agree with John Cole’s ultimate judgment. I’m one of those pro-gay marriage liberals who’s been saying to the gay rights crowd that they should wait, that they shouldn’t sue, that places like Maine and New York were going to legalize it outside the court process, and… well, I was wrong, and all I can do is say I’m sorry, and it’s got to suck. I don’t know what to say.
But I still want to chime in and say that Aravosis is full of shit, and Dan Savage is mistaken, on the particular argument that Obama compared homosexuals to child rapists. It’s bullshit.
Zuzu's Petals
@Rick Taylor:
Interestingly, it appears opponents of DOMA have cited the very same cases cited in the DoJ brief.
hal
The gay community has been absolutely in love with Clinton for years, and he barely ever talked gay rights in his two terms. He signed DADT, and the gay community shouted; “he had to, he had to!” He signed DOMA, and we said “He had to! There would have been a constitutional amendment!”
Excuses, excuses, all through Clinton’s two terms. But, if Obama hasn’t ushered in a gay oasis on day one, he’s a hate mongering bigot, and a sell out. The Gay community moved to the center right along with Bill, all to protect him, because he was supposedly such a stalwart. I’m more than willing to give Obama the same consideration.
Right now, Obama has not accomplished what I want him to on gay rights, but he is moving in the right direction. Clinton was simply doing all he ever was going to do, and he was rewarded with loyal support for years, in spite of the burdens he signed into law.
I’ll give Obama a little more time before I decide he’s exactly the same.
Tonybrown74
@hal:
What?
With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Many people were pissed about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. We screamed bloody murder when he signed DOMA into law (in the dead of night, no less), and then campaigned on it in the South (in radio ads). Another big betrayal was is position on needle exchanges (admitting that it works yet refusing to allow federal dollars to support the program).
What you forget, is that we were defending him from the crazy that was the GOP congress at the time, along with all other liberal groups, who were pissed of at him for many reasons as well (NAFTA, Welfare Reform, etc).
Zuzu's Petals
@Rick Taylor:
Well to be fair, maybe he meant John Aravosis and Dan Savage’s heads should be on sticks. Okay, prob’ly not.
HyperIon
@Just Some Fuckhead wrote: I thought Michael D.’s shot at AWS was the highlight of the thread and really helped set this thread apart from the last fifty ghey threads.
So true.
gbear
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Oh yes it was. You were a total dick.
Give yourself a pat on the back.
Just Some Fuckhead
@gbear:
You liked it, then?
slightly_peeved
Agree, but want to raise a related point.
I know plenty of places in the world where the response of a political party for being knocked out of power is to become more ideologically pure and move away from the centre. The Republicans now. British Labour pre-Blair, the British Tories pre-Cameron.
Personally, I don’t know a single case where this has worked; where the party that lost an election as a centre-right (or left) party wins by rebranding as a hard right (or left) party. The way such parties generally win back power is to move towards the other party. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”. Clinton’s triangulation. Blair in the UK, with Cameron now looking good to oust Labour by almost impersonating Blair.
In light of this, the idea that Democrats will become more inclined to go Left by losing elections doesn’t fit the political reality. People don’t become bolder through defeat as much as they become bolder through victory. What made the right so bold in the US was their control. The right in the US didn’t go as far right as they did because of fear, they did it because some of these people seriously believed they would never be out of power.
So do everything that Cerberus suggested to move the direction of your party, but at the end of the day, even if you disagree with them, get as many votes for them as you can. Because the lesson you’ll teach the Democratic party by withholding your vote is probably not the lesson you want to teach them.