That Obama fellow needs to find his guts. He left them somewhere during the campaign…likely in his deep chest of ambition.
He was to be our strong defender of LGBT rights and civil rights more generally. He has failed through both cowardice and duplicity. Pretending he is so clever that he can keep opposing sides each and all happy with him, he is oblivious to that failure.
Consider:
- During his campaign he pandered to win with the socially conservative marriage=1 man + 1 woman.
- He has made no effort to repeal the don't-ask-don't-tell military sham.
- In Smelt v. United States, he allowed his DOJ to double speak about full faith and credit (comity).
- He has made no effort to support same-sex marriage.
- Today, he announces a tepid expansion of federal benefits to homosexual employees, with no mention of health benefits.
In short, he is neither decisive, nor a leader, nor even a civil-rights champion.
I was going to leave this all alone. After all, MSM and bloggers alike have been all over these issues, particularly the absurd DOMA filing in Smelt. By the bye, in addition to those few leader links above, important analysis is at the Leonard Link — the prof notes that beyond the smelly Smelt lies, there are two solid arguments against repealing it in this individual case.
The insulting benefits tweak was just too much though. I now thoroughly support people raising hell with the administration on gay rights, SSM and all related issues.
Obama has had his time, his breathing space, this chance to get economic reforms underway. Now your job is to let him know what you expect and how badly he is letting the nation down. At least once a week, in some way, send a message to the President…by email, phone, paper mail or in person.
Cross-post: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.
is that Obama is offering this insulting crumb not because he thinks it’s time to start offering us insulting crumbs, but because he’s despirate to find a way to keep the June 25 LGBT-DNC fundraiser from imploding.
That’s right – all he cares about is his crass fundraising potential. I got a fundraising email from the DNC (but labeled with sender Barack Obama) just yesterday. I unsubscribed to the DNC system, and told them why. Not another penny is leaving my pocket for the likes of him or the party that enables Obama’s backsliding and vile treatment of LGBT people. “Fierce advocate” my ass. “Fierce asshole” is more like it.
I respect you anger, Laurel, and join you in dissapointment about Obama’s lack of leadership on LGBT issues so far.
<
p>However, I don’t think it is fair to say that “all he cares about is his crass fundraising potential.”
<
p>Instead, I would argue that Obama is wisely avoiding for now what would surely require a series of highly contentious political debates over the hate crimes bill and, especially, repealing DADT and DOMA.
<
p>I join the President in his apparant calculation that staging such debates right now would be detrimental to the ongoing larger iniatives around “saving the economy” (increasing regulation of business while providing billions in needed stimulus dollars for state government), health care reform and energy policy.
<
p>It’s been less than six months since Obama took office. Aside from the outrageous stance in the Smelt case (inexcusable), I’ll give the President a chance to move different aspects his broad political agenda on his own multi-year timetable. At least for now.
do you know more than they do about where his concerns lie?
<
p>and the debates about hate crimes would NOT be contentious because CONGRESS ALREADY PASSED IT LAST SESSION.
<
p>and the vast majority of Americans, including conservatives, support the repeal of DADT. no contention there.
<
p>finally, even if some of these issues were contentious, Obama has not shied away from any other contentious issue. Health care reform, HELLO? Financial bailouts HELLO? Etc etc.
Obama has led on three issues: economic recovery (financial bailouts, if you prefer), health reform and energy policy. Nothing else, domestically.
<
p>Abortion. HELLO? Affirmative Action. HELLO? Crime/Sentencing/Drug policy. HELLO? Education. HELLO? Gun control. HELLO? Immigration reform. HELLO? Social Security/entitlement reform. HELLO? Etc, etc.
<
p>Generally, you are being either naive or disingenuous to suggest that these policies are uncontroversial. The hate crimes bill is actively opposed by a large number of libertarians and conservatives (see e.g. last month’s Jacoby column: http://www.boston.com/bostongl… ). On DADT, the policy is unpopular among the public but an alternative solution accepted by the military leadership is not easy to craft or get approved. In November, 2008, Obama advisers announced that his plans to repeal the policy may be delayed until as late as 2010, because Obama “first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus, and then present legislation to Congress.”
<
p>The reality is that these are difficult issues (not for me but on which to reach consensus) for which solutions will take time and political breathing room.
<
p>Are you happy President Clinton rushed passage of DADT in his first six months so he could say he did something “right away” for the LGBT community?
Jacoby has written literally dozens of “gay marriage will bring down civilization” columns. To quote him on anything to do with gay rights is to call your motives into question.
My motive is only to engage in discussion around Obama’s policies and agenda. I use Jacoby “as back up” only as an easy local example of conservative opposition to a revised hate crimes statue. I could have just as easily have quoted Limbaugh (“carving out protection for perverts”). But my point was simply that there is a significant portion of the right-wing that opposes expansion of the hate crimes bill vehemently.
<
p>I certainly do not agree with Jacoby on this or virtually any other issue. I think Jacoby is an ideological hack who uses his gift for writing to perpetuate evil.
<
p>To be as clear as possible, I am unequivocally in favor of strengthening the hate crimes law, repealing the DOMA, and ending the ridiculous DADT policy. I’m 100% in favor off full marriage for same sex couples, including calling it marriage and federal recognition. I oppose any and all discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression. I can’t think of a single “gay rights” issue on which I would disagree with the leading pro-rights arguments.
<
p>My motive is solely to engage in a discussion (primarily for my own entertainment) around Obama and what I see as the pragmatic side of politics.
<
p>I don’t think Clinton could have gotten much more than DADT, which was a significant improvement over the outright ban on homosexuals in the military. I just don’t think there was enough support from moderate Dems or others to get much more in 1993. In the 16 years since, much around society in and out of the military has gotten their heads around the idea that homosexuals are real regular people, just like the rest of society. I think DADT actually helped with that social progression.
<
p>So, am I happy that he did it “right away”? Yip. The sooner he did it, the sooner society had one more chapter of evidence that “teh gayz1!1!!” are just as productive, obnoxious, creative, asinine, goofy, brave, and homicidal as the rest of society.
should my rights have to wait?
<
p>He’s had months to put into initiative economic plans. We were patient, at least as much as possible. Then he has his DoJ send that vile and atrocious, nasty piece of shit opinion comparing our relationships to incest and saying we have less rights than other minorities. He isn’t just taking his time with gay rights, he’s actively working against them.
<
p>So I’m calling bull shit on your apologist argument. We don’t need more members of the Fierce Advocate Brigade; We need decent human beings who realize, like MLK Jr., that justice denied is justice delayed. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who defends what Obama’s doing is defending the worst kinds of bigotry.
I caught a bit of a press conference with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the WH lawn yesterday on C-SPAN. While the planned topic of discussion was the financial crisis, Frank was asked for his reaction to this move by the President. Frank replied that to his satisfaction, Obama had gone as far as he could absent legislative authority and repeal of DOMA.
of the active role lbj played in getting the civil rights act of 1964 passed? there is a lot more a president can do than just sit back and say, “my hands are tied until a bill hits the ole desk!” obama lobbies fiercly for other legislation every minute of every day, so what frank said is just giving cover to the sham obama is perpetuating.
<
p>besides his ability to use the bully pulpit (or like lbj, just be a bully and really arm-twist), obama has the legal right to exercise his powers as commander in chief and stop the firing of lgbt soldiers. but he won’t because he apparently prefers to hire skinheads and gang bangers.
I basically liked this until the last line, which was too snide for my tastes, but I didn’t want to go down to 4 because you make good points about using the bully pulpit. Consider this comment a 4.5 from me.
… the army really is recruiting skinheads and gangbangers. It’d be snide if it were overstating the case. Sadly, it isn’t.
My reaction was mostly to tone and the implication that Obama actively endorsed such recruitment. Salon actually had quite the article on this the other day and several of the commenters pointed out the irony of allowing these, but barring homosexuals. The same thought came to my mind as I was reading the article. I certainly don’t see the logic.
the problem is that Obama promised A LOT during the campaigns, then immediately after election started “back burnering” everything to the point where just yesterday it was said that a vote on hate crimes bill would be put off until AUgust. this is a bill that passed in both chambers in the republican-lead congress last year. where is our fierce advocate? here is a great symopsis of what was promised, courtesy of Pam’s House Blend
We’ll see what he says tonight (5:45 EST), but Obama supporters need to start deciding what they’re going to do about this man who has absolutely betrayed a solid constituency. Speaking up would be nice, for starters. DOn’t let yourselves fall into the dismissive “this is ‘just’ gay stuff”. If a president will backtrack so thoroughly on major, specific campaign promises, he’s a real wild card and bound to screw you too.
No he hasn’t.
is that Obama actually does believe in marriage equality, exactly as he said waaaay back in 1996. But he later came to the conclusion that overt support for gay marriage would become a political liability for him as he sought ever higher office and faced an electorate that, in his estimation, was not ready for it. So he changed his public position. Not very hopey-changey. More like the audacity of nope.
even if you are correct, that doesn’t explain his stalling on repeal of dadt, an action which even a majority of conservatives support. and it doesn’t explain his absolute lack of leadership on shepherding the already-passed-once hate crimes bill through or his inability to articulate even one civil word about all the positive LGBT civil rights progress happening around the country. no, there;s more going on here than just electability calculations.
I hadn’t seen a link showing that the majority of conservatives support the repeal of DADT. I don’t doubt it, but I’d like to read about it…
here
Deval Patrick.
<
p>He was wholly supportive of our rights when it wasn’t so politically popular. He followed up on those rights even though there were other important issues going on. He did so before he even knew his own daughter is lesbian. Deval Patrick is an equal rights hero of the entire movement. Barack Obama is a backstabber of the first order.
<
p>The better theory on Barack Obama’s shifting marriage equality stance was he supported it when that support was politically expedient — very liberal Ill. district politics — and ditched it when it was perceived as a liability. The only real answer we have as to his real perspective is that he allowed his DoJ to compare our relationships to incestuous ones. I’m sorry, David, but actions speak louder than words.
Does this thread ring a bell?
<
p>You said, at the time:
<
p>
<
p>You are welcome to change your opinion, of course, especially if it follows mine 🙂
<
p>And as I stated at the time, leaders need to know when to lead, and when to wait for the public to catch up.
<
p>On this topic, though, it would appear that Obama now needs to catch up with public opinion.
<
p>That said, I still maintain that Obama has a lot going on. He’s been in office less than five months, and has some seriously heavy stuff to deal with.
<
p>I’m giving him a few more months.
about today’s 5:45 “unveiling” of The Memo. i’ve emphasized the part they feel the need to repeat twice.
No bold calls for movement of legislation forthcoming. Leadership? Wazzat?
this isn’t throwing us a bone, this is throwing salt into the wounds.
should read this. Anyone can be willing to give time for the President to do the right thing — the problem with Obama isn’t just his inaction, though. The problem is what he’s actually done… a lot of active stuff, spending time and energy, to thwart the GLBT community at every step of the way.
there seems to be none available, no details in print either.
I, however, have a somewhat different take as to why. For me this seems consistent with his (too) strong desire for consensus. In other words, expanding LGBT rights is unfortunately still controversial in some quarters. Therefore, Obama is once again showing his seeming reluctance to move on anything that anybody might disagree with. (See also, for example, health care reform.) I’m absolutely NOT defending this attitude, just to be clear. I would point out, however, that for all some of his primary-season supporters saw him as a progressive Messiah, his own words were constantly about bringing people together, so I’m not sure how surprised we should be that he hasn’t gone out on a limb on these controversies.
on the already-passed-once hate crimes bill, and on the repeal of dadt. so where is the excuse there? and, he didn’t seem to care about any lack of concensus during the campaign, when he one-upped clinton by saying he wouldn’t just see to the repeal of section 3, but of the whole law. and since the election he’s dubbed himself our “fierce advocate”. that isn’t the rhetoric of someone who keeps back due to lack of perfect concensus. in fact, he often verbally lauds the bringing together of opposing viewpoints. it’s one of his hallmarks. nope, i don’t buy it. there’s something else going on with obama.
if that consensus exist (and by consensus, it sometimes seems like virtual unanimity is required in Obama’s mind), then let’s get them through both chambers of THIS Congress. Of course, Harry Reid’s even worse in this department. He seems to not want to try anything that doesn’t have 60 votes to start.
it seems the only way to compel them to act.