Continuing the HRC Discussion

I used to think the most annoying people to argue with were Clinton supporters during the primary last year. I may have to re-eavulate that assessment. At any rate, back to my earlier post on the bizarre freak-out from the online gay activists to Obama’s speech at the HRC. Some times I don’t think people read what I say at all. For example:

I love this blog but I have a genuine problem with someone who is straight telling gay people to relax regarding DADT and DOM. We just don’t have the luxury of waiting. Sully is a self-righteous tool sometimes and definitely does not speak for the gay community, but honestly John. What we are asking for is so simple and quite small. I would rather not be lectured.

Precisely where did I say to be patient? To state it again, since you all apparently did not read it the first time:

Yes, you have every right to be pissed at the current state of affairs, because I sure would be pissed at being treated as a second class citizen if I were gay, and yes, if I had my way these things would already have been taken care of, and yes, you may have heard parts of his speech a year ago.

If I were gay and being treated like a second-class citizen, denied the rights straight people have, I would be blowing shit up, so I am not telling you to shut up or be patient. What I am telling you, however, is that the response from last night is completely and totally unproductive. In fact, it could actually be destructive to the cause.

The past eight years the Bush administration declared open war on the gay community. Now, you have a President who has openly declared his support for the causes, and not only that, campaigned in support of those issues, and then just took to the microphone and gave a long speech in support of those issues. And the response? This is typical:

He has not even remotely tried to use the bully pulpit. He has not expended one iota of his capital to move anything through Congress…and DADT is rejected by something like 60% plus of the American people!

As I noted in the comments, what exactly do you think the bully pulpit is? When the President takes to the podium at the HRC dinner, and openly, publicly, and I think, passionately supports your cause, that is using the bully pulpit. There isn’t some magic podium with a sign that says “Bully” on it from which a speech can be given and all the wrongs in the world are righted.

And despite the fact that Obama’s position is a 180 degree turn from the previous administration, which declared open war with the FMA, he is greeted with catcalls of “what have you done for me lately” or “just words,” feeding the right-wing narrative that Obama is all talk. Well played.

Nothing constructive is ever built with negativity. Period. So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don’t you do something constructive? Why don’t you embrace his message? How about an ad campaign that has Obama speaking from the HRC declaring support for your goals, and asking Congress whether they want to join you and the President in achieving those goals? How about going to Harry Reid, who is in a tight election as it is, and asking him whether or not he will join with the President and the gay community to end DADT and DOMA? How about stating that you stand in unison with the President, that you intend to work with him to achieve those goals.

I understand that may not be as cathartic as knee-capping your own guy while chanting “just words,” but it might be more productive. And it isn’t settling. It isn’t telling you to shut up or relax or be patient. It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team, even though throwing eggs and making farty sounds with your armpit is more fun.

And by the way, while you all are weakening your own team, Maggie Gallagher and Focus on the Family are all raising money to turn things back to the way they were on January 19th 2009. While you may not realize things are a lot different now, trust me, those guys do.






393 replies
  1. 1

    John,

    Thanks for reminding me that you’re a smartie every day.

    Media

  2. 2

    Despite my [ahem] less than constructive in the last thread, I would like to point out that this:

    And by the way, while you all are weakening your own team, Maggie Gallagher and Focus on the Family are all raising money to turn things back to the way they were on January 19th 2009.

    Is the biggest threat. Not just NOM and FotF, but all the other assholes who will drop what they’re doing and join forces with ANYONE who promises to stop the progress of gay rights. Think the members of a predominantly (or all) black church won’t pal around with white supremacists over this? Think again.

  3. 3
    CT Voter says:

    Barney Frank had an interesting observation on the NRA–that it’s power derived not from marches, but from lobbying, phone calls, and members contacting Congress. That’s a message everyone who loathes DADT and DOMA should take to heart. Get to know your Congresscritters, if you haven’t already, and if you have, renew the relationship.

  4. 4
    You Don't Say says:

    Great post, John.

  5. 5
    Malron says:

    John, you are feeling the frustration I’ve had with respected bloggers like John Aravosis and others since Prop 8 passed on election day. That’s when the freakout started and its grown progressively worse ever since….

  6. 6
    Midnight Marauder says:

    While you may not realize things are a lot different now, trust me, those guys do.

    And this is what it all boils down to. The world may look very much the same as it was when Barack Obama was elected, but it is indeed a very different place than it was 9 months prior.

    Simply because of this slightly adjusted statement:

    So instead of blowing up at the first President in my any lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don’t you do something constructive? Why don’t you embrace his message?

  7. 7
    Parthenon says:

    That needed to be said.

  8. 8
    buggy ding dong says:

    Bullshit. He has been all talk. You have the Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor and the President telling leaders in Congress NOT to move on this issue.

    Great, he’s GOING to repeal DADT, but he has done the opposite thus far. Think it is going to be politically easier to do this in 2010?

    You want to see some leadership on this issue, go watch the speach by Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal.

    Deeds not words. Very little has been done on a range of progressive issues since Obama took over. Gitmo is still open, we’re no closer to actually leaving Iraq, we have totally abdicated any changes to the financial system, etc.

    It would be one thing if, like Clinton, Obama were taking personal leadership on health care. He’s not. There’s no excuse for this absolute do-nothing year.

    It gets harder from here on out.

  9. 9
    Allan says:

    I’m not sure I understand, John.

    If you were gay, you would be blowing shit up.

    But those who actually are gay, who are simply expressing their opinions forcefully, are damaging their cause?

    So I should stop expressing the opinion that I would like to see more action from Obama, and instead bomb a federal building in my home town to advance LGBT equality?

    Not following your logic.

  10. 10
    Michael says:

    John, I stopped giving a shit about the perpetual dramatic outrage from gay rights activists long ago.

    They tend to not play well with others, and haven’t shown much “across the board” issue support.

  11. 11
    scott says:

    Gay retired United States Marine here John — I agree with you up to a very limited point about our team not freaking out HOWEVER, you go on and on about the bully pulpit but you ignore the fact that Obama could, in fact, actually do something about DADT other than talk about it.

    All it takes to effectively end it is a signed order from the Commander-in-Chief to stop enforcing it and the uniformed military leadership would be obliged to comply. Or resign in protest. Truman did in in ’48 when he integrated the armed services and all it took was a set of balls and a fountain pen.

    I think John, when you go on about us possibly damaging Obama and willfully ignore the fact that DADT could be ended five minutes ago you also ignore the fact that the GLBT community in America feels, with a good degree of justification, that Obama has taken our money, taken our votes and our labor on his behalf and then shit on us.

    First with the execrable Rick Warren invitation to the inauguration and on through the recent spate of Justice Dept. briefs filed in support of DOMA that included what many took to be a comparison of homosexuality with bestiality. Briefs that the Justice Dept. had absolutely no need to file. They could have simply chosen not to. Instead they aggressively supported the legislation.

    John, look at the wider picture that we’re living with here since at this point it has virtually nothing to do with the bully pulpit any more as far as we’re concerned; simply put, Obama made campaign promises to us. Those promises DID NOT include saying he would use the bully pulpit to try to get people to maybe do the right thing. They said he would actually do things — like repeal DADT.

    This is what he said on November 29th 2007,

    “As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country.”

    John he’s done none of the things he promised us and his speech to HRC was nothing more than a regurgitation of all of last years campaign promises.

    Given all that I’m surprised we’re not freaking out even more than we already are.

  12. 12
    Konrad2 says:

    So, if Obama repeals DADT by executive order, what’s there to stop the next Republican president from re-enacting it (or a stronger version) by executive order?

  13. 13
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Just to be clear, I completely disagree with John. I think you folks need to shut the fuck up because whenever you start whining, it just pisses everyone off and sets us back another year.

    Try not to remind anyone what hideous people you are while we try to get this shit done.

  14. 14
    ruemara says:

    Sense is rather anathema to those who find strength in outrage. I’ve never seen a standing president support gays as much as Obama and I say that as someone who does wish he’d just rule by fiat. As he said though, if he came in and signed some sweeping declaration giving gays rights, the next guy who comes in who is anti-gay, can do the exact same thing. I live in California and I’ve already seen that happen. Congress had a session debating DADT this past week, where the only standout against repealing it was this http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.....ck-man.php twatensquatch.

    When was the last time Congress even addressed gay rights simple as a right and not because some evil fuckers attacked and killed someone? For my money, the best damn think people can do who want equal rights for all is wave the money carrot in front of their congresscritter while beating them about the head with contact stick.

  15. 15
    tc125231 says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: Yes indeed. It’s always important to understand who your real enemies are. Obama may not have done all “we” hoped –but he is not the enemy.

  16. 16
    ruemara says:

    “thing” dammit, the best damn thing. Where’s my edit button?

  17. 17
    Cassidy says:

    @buggy ding dong: Just for clarification, we’re actually pretty damn close to being out of Iraq.

  18. 18
    celticdragon says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Go fuck yourself.

    Really.

    When you have your spouse being harassed at work, you’ve been stalked, threatened with violence in public and get fired from your job for no reason at all…get back to me.

    The President had a preacher give his invocation who compared my marriage to having sex with animals or raping little kids…and you want me to shut the fuck up??!

    Honestly, if you were here in person one of us would be in the hospital and the other one in jail. Maybe it’s best we just ignore each other.

  19. 19
    John Cole says:

    @Allan: I’d be on the perimeter, shooting outwards. Not aiming inward, lobbing grenades at the CP.

  20. 20
    John Cole says:

    @celticdragon: That was a joke post he made, celtic. JSF is well known for trolling.

  21. 21
    gwangung says:

    @buggy ding dong:

    Sorry, but…bullshit yourself.

    This is not an imperial issues. This does not revolve around personalities. It revolves around YOUR rights.

    So fight for them like it’s your rights. Counter the Focus On the Family bozos. Be the counterweighting cudgel.

    Because you’re trying to send out Obama to fight your fight for your, without a weapon, to counter the wingnuts that are against gay rights with nothing but his own personality and political charisma.

  22. 22
    celticdragon says:

    @John Cole:

    Okay, understood.

  23. 23
    burnspbesq says:

    @scott:

    You make a number of fair points, but with all due respect to your views (and with enormous respect and admiration for your service to our country), I think you are missing one important point.

    Not everybody can be first in line, and political capital is finite. Fixing the economy, fixing health care, taking meaningful action on climate change, and getting to sensible policies on Iraq and Afghanistan have, IMO, higher priority claims on those resources at this point in time.

    You are, of course, absolutely correct that National Command Authority could, with the stroke of a pen, stop enforcement of DADT. But consider the political shit-storm that would result, and consider whether dealing with that political shit-storm would make it harder to deal with other problems.

    And before you say that that’s easy for me to say because I am an affluent straight white male, understand that gay rights issues are intensely personal for me. I have a teenage kid who is growing up gay in Wingut Heaven (i.e., Orange County). I am determined that he never have to face the shit that gays of your generation have had to face. But I’d also like him to be a first-class citizen in a country where he can find a job, and go to the doctor if he gets sick, and not have to worry about his friends getting blown up by IEDs in Kandahar for no good reason.

  24. 24
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    For Johns’ next trick, he will bang his head against a The Great Wall of China till the wall falls down.

  25. 25
    Gator90 says:

    “Some have asked: ‘Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?’ The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act.”

    –MLK, “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

  26. 26
    scott says:

    @ Konrad2

    “So, if Obama repeals DADT by executive order, what’s there to stop the next Republican president from re-enacting it (or a stronger version) by executive order?”

    Absolutely nothing. But is that then reason enough to do nothing? Because you’re afraid of being reversed later on?

    Eisenhower could have reversed Executive Order 9981 and re-segregated the armed forces, but that possibility didn’t stop Truman from signing the order in the first place.

    Because he knew it was the right thing to do.

  27. 27
    Ditka says:

    The War on Drugs (aka the war against my neighbour) and other policies have ravaged the black community.
    The same black community knows Obama is the best vector for fixing it so they haven’t kneecapped him. This isn’t rocket science.

  28. 28
    ChrisNBama says:

    Love your observations, John! It’s why I come to your site several times a day.

    Cheers,

    Chris

  29. 29
    burnspbesq says:

    @scott:

    Eisenhower could have reversed Executive Order 9981 and re-segregated the armed forces, but that possibility didn’t stop Truman from signing the order in the first place.

    Where your historical analogy falls down is that Truman had absolutely no shot at getting Congress to act. The only way the armed forces got desegrated in 1947 was by executive order.

    I happen to believe that it is possible to get DADT repealed in the current Congress.

  30. 30
    taodon says:

    If everything else is a priority over equal rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, then what’s the point of any of it?

  31. 31
    kay says:

    @buggy ding dong:

    Gitmo is still open,

    My pet peeve, so forgive the OT.

    Guantanamo is “still open” because the US Congress will not allow detainees to be 1. moved to the US for trial, and 2. held in the US post-conviction. I’m not clear on where the “free the Gitmo 227!” people all went running off to when the hard part started, but there’s some practical hurdles to surmount here. The Majestic Rule Of Law includes dragging Congress along, kicking and screaming. The hard part.

    Not to worry. Holder is lobbying Congress. Alone, apparently.

    Thursday, October 8, 2009

    Key Democratic lawmakers agreed Wednesday to allow detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be transferred to the United States for trial, removing one of several hurdles the administration must clear to meet its January deadline for closing the military prison.

    House and Senate Democrats who are negotiating the defense authorization bill included language that would prohibit only the “release” of detainees in the United States, leaving other options on the table. A separate conference on the homeland security appropriations bill included more restrictive language, allowing transfer to this country only for prosecution. “

  32. 32
    scott says:

    @burnspbesq Thanks for your thoughts on this.

    I absolutely see you point EXCEPT that I vote for people for president because I think them capable of multi-tasking and I expect them to try. I expect them to be able to do several things….many things, all at the same time. That’s what we pay them for and right now, with regard to GLBT issues — issues that speak the THE MOST fundamental aspects of our republic, that of equality — I don’t see a whole lot of trying going on.

    I was going to quote from Martin Luther King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail but I see Gator90 already has.

    I would, however, recommend that you go read it in its entirely for it deals directly with similar issues that me and my brothers and sisters are presently dealing with.

  33. 33
    zoe kentucky in pittsburgh says:

    I’m a lesbian and I think Obama is on the right track. I understand people’s frustration, however, attacking the most powerful ally on our issues isn’t at all constructive.

    Frankly, with health care reform on the table I’m happy to wait for Obama to get to DADT and DOMA. I don’t want him to do anything right now that might distract or derail health care reform. Put it this way, the GOP would LOVE LOVE LOVE it if he tried to push for either one of these issues right now. Obama is a smart politician and knows that timing is a huge part of making things happen. Right this very moment is not the right time– after health care reform is passed.

    Also, we are about to get the first hate crimes legislation passed– that’s not nothing. In some ways it’s bigger than DADT and DOMA, as it effects all of us and has the power to change lives in every country in every state.

  34. 34
    AB says:

    My current theory is that protests are just another form of masturbation.

    Folks need a more effective activism mechanism. The reason the teabaggers can get it to work is because they have their own pet media.

  35. 35
    Comrade Luke says:

    I don’t know why anyone hasn’t stated the obvious.

    This has nothing to do with Obama’s “plate being full”. It’s entirely likely that the reason nothing has been done on this issue is that if Obama did something like repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell now, the hysteria would drown out literally every single other thing that’s going on.

    This definitely needs to be on the short list, but there are other things that the administration has deemed more important, like health care.

    IMO this should be done immediately after health care reform is passed, but not before. If, once health care gets passed, another issue gets put in front of it, you have every right to be pissed off, complain, and withhold money and votes.

    That’s my $.02

  36. 36
    Jody says:

    As a gay guy myself, I agree with you John. But I also think that just talking about it isn’t enough.

    One of the things I’ve seen Obama do on several occasions is to talk up support of something, then apparently do little about it. This has the net effect of mobilizing his base to ensure he is as good as his word.

    In other words “I agree with you. Now make me do it.”

    The left in this country has a nasty habit of trying to sit the big fights out, or worse, taking it’s ball and going home at the worst possible moments. Being led along like this keeps us engaged and reminds us that we have skin in the game.

    I can’t say for sure that he’s doing it on purpose, but it sure looks that way.

  37. 37
    burnspbesq says:

    @scott:

    The important things are (1) that we remember that our points of agreement outnumber our points of disagreement, and (2) that we don’t allow those points of disagreement to be used as wedge issues to keep us from working together on the things on which we agree.

  38. 38
    scott says:

    @burnspbesq

    My analogy was simply that Obama has the same option as Truman in spite of the possibility of a later president reversing the order. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As for overturning the law in the senate — I assume you were watching a different tee vee channel than the rest of us this past summer and you missed the part where when Senator Christine Gillibrand had to withdraw her amendment seeking to overturn DADT because she couldn’t even get close to the requisite 60 votes.

  39. 39
    ChrisNBama says:

    I would also like to second what John said earlier: what Obama did last night WAS significant. Before, as a candidate–like Clinton before him–he would talk the usual stuff about equal rights to attract gay votes. Last night, though, he brought the office of the Presidency behind his rhetoric. He boldly declared that he would end DOMA and DADT as President Obama and not Candidate Obama. I think that’s important.

    Also, it is not Obama’s style to do things via executive fiat. Sure he could issue an executive order to abolish DADT, but that would be immensely counterproductive. He would suffer tremendous backlash from the military and, by extension, Congress.

    The better approach, and the one POTUS is adopting, is to do a quiet policy review behind the scenes through the office of the SECDEF. Then bring about change in a more systematic, organic fashion. We are already seeing signs of this when a recent Pentagon publication highlighted an article arguing for the end of DADT. At some point soon, Congress will begin debating the matter. But make no mistake, the ending of DADT will happen during Obama’s term of office.

  40. 40
    Corner Stone says:

    @taodon:

    If everything else is a priority over equal rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, then what’s the point of any of it?

    Fuck yes. A thousand times yes. What’s the fucking point if we are prioritizing equal rights?
    Some are more equal than others? Yes. Yes, I agree.

  41. 41
    burnspbesq says:

    @scott:

    As for overturning the law in the senate—I assume you were watching a different tee vee channel than the rest of us this past summer and you missed the part where when Senator Christine Gillibrand had to withdraw her amendment seeking to overturn DADT because she couldn’t even get close to the requisite 60 votes.

    No, I didn’t miss that. I am at a loss to understand why none of these geniuses can figure out that the best way to move repeal of DADT through the Senate is to attach it to a Defense appropriations bill.

  42. 42
    Cassidy says:

    And really, I don’t care how we come off – be it as rude or ingrateful or impatient or whiney. I don’t fucking care, John, how you straight people perceive us. We won’t get what we want by making nice. People never do.

    So, just being objective here, why exactly should I give a shit then? I’m just one of those lowly straight people.

    If everything else is a priority over equal rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, then what’s the point of any of it?

    Because women and minorities are very clearly born the way they are. Homosexuality, despite a probable 100% agreement on this site that it is something people are born with, has not been determined to be genetic. So therefore, if it is a lifestyle choice, then it isn’t the same as others.

    Have said it before and will say it again. Despite the misconceptions, there are many gays who are happily and proudly serving side by side with us (inferior) straights and we generally don’t give a shit. More often than not, ew know who they are, as does the Chain of Command, and nobody makes a big deal about it. Now, coming out on live television and stating that you are gay is in dirrect conflict with military law and you’re on your own.

  43. 43
    Corner Stone says:

    @zoe kentucky in pittsburgh:

    I understand people’s frustration, however, attacking the most powerful ally on our issues isn’t at all constructive.

    But what is all this shot about “Make me do it” ??
    People say, we should follow the whole “I agree with you, now make me do it.” bullshit, but then they also say, “Let’s not put any pressure on our allies.”
    WTF?

  44. 44
    Corner Stone says:

    @scott:

    First with the execrable Rick Warren invitation to the inauguration and on through the recent spate of Justice Dept. briefs filed in support of DOMA that included what many took to be a comparison of homosexuality with bestiality. Briefs that the Justice Dept. had absolutely no need to file. They could have simply chosen not to. Instead they aggressively supported the legislation.

    I’m pretty sure this is how some people here describe Obama as “being on your side”.

  45. 45
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jody:

    In other words “I agree with you. Now make me do it.”

    The left in this country has a nasty habit of trying to sit the big fights out, or worse, taking it’s ball and going home at the worst possible moments. Being led along like this keeps us engaged and reminds us that we have skin in the game.

    I can’t say for sure that he’s doing it on purpose, but it sure looks that way.

    No. No. A thousand times bullshit and NO.

  46. 46

    Absolutely correct, John.
    And I think we’re being ratfucked.
    I am seeing more and more comments like this around the progressive blogosphere:
    “Better a right wing Republican telling us we are going to burn in hell, then a lying Democrat pretending they are with us while they stab us in the back!!!!” (that’s over on Steve Clemon’s blog now, under a post where he finds it deeply suspicious that Obama’s speech wasn’t available soon enough online!)
    Anyway, whose interests do comments like this really serve? I don’t believe that a person who was ever a Democratic supporter could actually have written such a line. But a Republican troll would have.
    I’m not someone who likes to argue with people, but I am now trying to call comments like this out whenever I see them.

  47. 47
    anonevent says:

    @Comrade Luke: My thoughts exactly. Imagine if Grassley could tak about sex with children and animals all day – they do love their porn. That’s all he and Bill O’rally would talk about.

    The only thing that posses me off about the statements made after the speech are the “He’s never going to do anything” and the “Fuck you for not caring about me, Obama” quotes. He’s still got a lot of work to do, but it can be a serious drain when people talk like that,and it doesn’t make you work harder. If you think about your bosses talking to you that way, you know it’s not constructive.

  48. 48
    Corner Stone says:

    @ChrisNBama:

    But make no mistake, the ending of DADT will happen during Obama’s term of office.

    Care to make a bet on this? We can donate to whatever charity the winner decides on.
    $100 each sound reasonable?

  49. 49
    Ash Can says:

    @Cassidy:

    has not been determined to be genetic.

    So when you were weighing the pros and cons of being straight vs. being gay, what made you choose the way you did? Or are you still putting that choice off?

    I’m straight, and even I can see the shards of your credibility flying at random with this statement.

  50. 50
    Cain says:

    @Konrad2:

    So, if Obama repeals DADT by executive order, what’s there to stop the next Republican president from re-enacting it (or a stronger version) by executive order?

    Exactly. Morever, you’re letting congress off the hook. You’re giving them a hail mary and they don’t have to deal with it. Congress is who you should be going after. They can remove DADT once and for all, the president can only enforce it for 4 or 8 years. Then when the next republican president come (and a republican will come.. don’t think they won’t) they’ll just repeal the order, but congress can make it forever. That’s the smarter move.

    cain

  51. 51
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Malron:

    John, you are feeling the frustration I’ve had with respected bloggers like John Aravosis and others since Prop 8 passed on election day.

    John Aravosis freaks out when he has to make do with a smartphone that’s less than top-of-the-line. He goes out of his way to put the worst possible spin on everything just so that he _can_ throw shit around. IMHO he’s the most obnoxious and counterproductive blogger on “our side.”

  52. 52
    Cassidy says:

    @Ash Can: You missed the point. Me, I have no doubts that people are born gay. That doesn’t change the fact that a significant portion of our population are either unsure, or believe that it is a choice. So, trying to frame the argument as a civil rights issue, in comparison to minorities women, is a losing argument.

  53. 53
    scott says:

    @Cassidy

    Soooo, ummmm, what then do you call it when people decide what religion they are? I call that a choice and it seems to me to be a pretty protected one. Constitutionally speaking that is.

    And FYI Cassidy, I served for 20 years in the Marines rising to the rank of Sergeant Major. My last duty station was with a Marine infantry regiment as their regimental Sergeant Major and at absolutely NO TIME in those 20 years could I or anyone like me serve openly. I was subjected to witch hunts and the fear of them throughout my career — even while DADT was in effect –and in spite of the high level of service I performed for my country and the decorations and awards I was authorized to wear by that nation I could have been thrown out and separated from the Marines with a Good of the Service discharge at any time on the word of a single “witness”.

    So don’t fucking tell me that nobody makes a big deal about it because you clearly don’t know shit.

  54. 54
    Ash Can says:

    @Corner Stone:

    but then they also say, “Let’s not put any pressure on ditch our allies.”

    Now it’s accurate.

  55. 55
    Allan says:

    Cassidy, being a homophobe isn’t genetic either. So by your “logic” it’s OK to discriminate against you on the basis of your homophobia.

  56. 56
    Llelldorin says:

    Historical question: Was the segregation of the military a matter of law, or an administrative matter? That is, when Truman signed Executive Order 9981, was he using his power as C in C of the military to direct their executive decision-making (which is very obviously a power the President wields), or was he directing that black-letter law be ignored (which, much as it galls me in this case, really shouldn’t be).

  57. 57
    Davis X. Machina says:

    How many Obama voters left the polls thinking “I better have voted for someone who is going to be our Bush, dammit, or even better our Cheney. Enough of this ‘law’ shit. It’s our turn to break stuff.”

    A third is my guess.

  58. 58
    Cassidy says:

    @scott: Hmmmm….retired vs. actively serving….yeah, I don’t know what’s going on the military right now.

    And you’re wrong. It takes more than a “witness” to be chaptered out under DADT. If that was the case, I could “witness” any asshole I didn’t like playing the full queen at the Blue Oyster. Maybe your lack of understanding of the policy inspired your fear.

  59. 59
    Crucible says:

    What many gays are disappointed about is that Obama, while he campaigned for gay rights, has done very little in a tangible way to advance the cause. Bill Clinton, who was also personally friendly to gay Americans, did more in his signing of DADT and DOMA to undermine gay rights than Republicans ever did. Let’s just say that gay America has both of its eyes wide open this time. Speeches are not enough. The fear is that unless we are vigilant, Obama might be another Clinton.

    I agree that you attract more bees with honey — tone matters. But silently waiting for something to happen is not the way to bring about change. Pressure matters in politics.

  60. 60
    Cassidy says:

    @Allan: Do any of you actually read anything or is this Kneejerk Dumbass Day? Good god, you see certain phrases and completely lose your marbles instead of actually trying to comprehend.

  61. 61
    John Cole says:

    I just got an email from a PUMA who called me an Obama bot and informed me that things have not changed from the Bush admin, and that Clinton was the pro-gay candidate.

    I think we are forgetting that some of the most obnoxious portion ofthe Hillary dead-enders came from the gay community.

  62. 62
    taodon says:
    If everything else is a priority over equal rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, then what’s the point of any of it?

    Because women and minorities are very clearly born the way they are. Homosexuality, despite a probable 100% agreement on this site that it is something people are born with, has not been determined to be genetic. So therefore, if it is a lifestyle choice, then it isn’t the same as others.

    Religion is a lifestyle choice and is protected by the Constitution, thereby invalidating that argument even if being gay wasn’t genetic.

  63. 63
    Ash Can says:

    @Cassidy: Fair enough, and I tip my hat to your calm response. However, proving that people are born gay is akin to proving the theory of gravity. Supporting evidence is so abundant and so obvious that the only response to those asking for proof, apart from dismissing them as loons, is “How much fucking proof do you need?” The fact is, they’ll never have the proof they say they need because they refuse to believe the fact in the first place. And just because this willful ignorance exists doesn’t mean that this issue isn’t a civil rights issue. By definition, it is. There’s no other way to frame it, because it is what it is.

  64. 64
    Cassidy says:

    Religion is a lifestyle choice and is protected by the Constitution, thereby invalidating that argument even if being gay wasn’t genetic.

    I’ll agree with that. It’s all in how you frame your argument.

    @Ash Can: People are stupid and willfully ignorant. Such is life as well. But, you still need some of those folk on your side to get what you want.

  65. 65
    taodon says:
    If everything else is a priority over equal rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, then what’s the point of any of it?

    Because women and minorities are very clearly born the way they are. Homosexuality, despite a probable 100% agreement on this site that it is something people are born with, has not been determined to be genetic. So therefore, if it is a lifestyle choice, then it isn’t the same as others.

    Let’s try this again – sorry for the double post, but it must be clarified…

    Religion is a lifestyle choice and is protected by the Constitution, thereby invalidating that argument even if being gay wasn’t genetic.

  66. 66
    taodon says:

    I give up.

  67. 67
    The Other Steve says:

    What would be the point of the President not enforcing a law if 4 years from now a new President decided to enforce it? Wouldn’t all those openly gay soldiers be immediately removed from the military in such a case?

    Wouldn’t it be better to change the law?

  68. 68
    Jody says:

    Corner Stone: If you don’t agree, either continue to pressure Obama and remain involved, or take your ball and go home. Seems simple enough.

  69. 69
    scott says:

    @Cassidy — I’ll hold my DD-214 up against anything in your SRB as it relates to what I know about the military and DADT– I mean given that my retirement occurred all of 19 months ago AND as senior enlisted man in a Regimental Combat Team it was my job to actually enforce DADT.

  70. 70
    JGabriel says:

    Just commenting to note that I agree with Cole. That’s a fine analysis, John.

    I don’t really have anything else to add, but given how I’d probably jump in to mock something I disagreed with, it seemed negligent not to say anything.

    So that’s it. Nicely stated, John.

    .

  71. 71
    inkadu says:

    @scott: Scott — Did you read your blockquote from Obama? The one you cut and pasted? Obama said he will work with congress to pass bills; he never said anything about executive orders. He is doing exactly what he said he would do.

  72. 72
    Allan says:

    @Cassidy: I don’t know if today is Kneejerk Dumbass Day. I’ll defer to your greater expertise in the area.

  73. 73
    John Cole says:

    Jesus. I just saw they are now freaking out because the full text remarks of his speech to the HRC were not on the WH website fast enough.

    I give up. Fuck this. Nothing but hysterical idiots in my old party, nothing but hysterical idiots in my new one.

  74. 74
    scott says:

    @inkadu

    Try reading the ENTIRE quote. Like this part here:

    “I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country.”

  75. 75
    zoe kentucky in pittsburgh says:

    Honestly, when it comes to fighting for LGBT civil rights, as important as they are to me personally, I think patience and pragmatism is a huge virtue. Looks what happens when we push at the wrong time and in the wrong way? We get legalized gay marriage in California and then get shit like Prop 8. Who knows how many years it’ll be before that is reversed and look at all the time, money and energy we’re going to have to spend doing it. Totally waste of energy and resources. (Naturally we need to work to reverse it, but it would be nice if we didn’t have to.)

    Does it mean that in a year from now that if Obama hasn’t done anything on DOMA or DADT that I won’t feel differently? No. But right now? This very minute? It’s about health care reform. Right now I care more about health care reform than my right to marry. My wife of 10 years is ill and trying to fix our fucked up health care system is way more important to me. Health care reform will literally affect our long-term health and security more than getting legally married. Do our civil rights matter? Yes. Can they wait until after health care reform? Yes.

    In fact, if next week Obama were to start pushing loudly for repeal of DADT I’d be sorta pissed– my reaction would be what the fuck are you doing???? Keep your eye on the health care ball, please.

    Seriously, I am getting pretty sick of single issue lgbt folks. There are actually other things more important at the moment, there are bigger priorities, that is just the reality of our world at the moment. If in a year Obama has done nothing then we can talk and scream, k?

    By the way, where does passing hate crimes legislation fit into this? It’s about to pass. I’d call that pretty damned significant. If I were advising him I’d say push for ENDA first– it’s positive, about protections– and then repeal of DADT and DOMA. In my mind he has at least 2-3 years to do all of these things.

  76. 76
    NR says:

    John – I don’t mind Obama taking time to get all his ducks in a row before moving on DADT and DOMA. Really I don’t. I remember what happened when Clinton tried to move too fast on gays in the military, and I don’t want to see that happen again.

    What I do mind is stuff like Obama inviting an anti-gay bigot to give the invocation at his inauguration. Or stuff like the Obama Justice Department issuing a brief in a civil rights case that likens homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

    It’s one thing not to move fast enough on the gay community’s priorities. It’s another to deliberately spit in their faces. The Obama administration has done far too much of the latter.

  77. 77
    Crucible says:

    @Cassidy: As a gay man, I find it offensive to have straight people tell me I am just “enjoying a lifestyle”, as if my sexual identity is something I can just choose or change. When did you choose to be straight? If you’re a man, could you decide today to be sexually attracted to men?

    And what does it matter if homosexuality is genetic? What if it’s congenital (i.e., determined by gestational factors)? What if it’s environmental? Would that really make a difference?

  78. 78
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @ChrisNBama:

    But make no mistake, the ending of DADT will happen during Obama’s term of office.

    @Corner Stone:

    Care to make a bet on this? We can donate to whatever charity the winner decides on.
    $100 each sound reasonable?

    I will gladly put money on Obama ending DADT before the end of his first term. That is like free money. You are just being silly if you don’t think that is going to happen. Seriously, we are only 9 months in to the man’s first term. Histrionics aside, progress will come.

  79. 79
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Agreed. Calling Aravosis “respected” is like…
    Um, well it’s not very accurate.

  80. 80
    zoe kentucky in pittsburgh says:

    I hope everyone here realizes that there is a lot of dissention in the LBGT community about strategy and approach. Corner does not represent us all, the fact is you can’t really hear the voices that say “settle down now, you’re not helping things” because it’s a much harder thing to say.

    In other words, don’t overreact to the opinions of the loud few and assume that they represent us all. They don’t.

  81. 81
    ruemara says:

    I’m confused. When did “make me do it”, become “abuse me as bad as my enemies so I will work for you”? You see, I can understand lobbying him, emailing the WH, demanding your rights in a march, etc, etc. but the whole “FU Obama”, “just as bad or worse than Bush” meme…does accountability mean what you think it means? Because it sure wouldn’t motivate me to rush anything. And Obama doesn’t have a full plate? Really? Well, dang, it must just be me. I actually see this as on his full plate, just not main course. It doesn’t have to be, because Congress makes the laws, he signs them. He can lobby them more, yes, but so can you.

  82. 82
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @John Cole:

    That was a joke post he made, celtic. JSF is well known for trolling.

    I’m well known for a few things but not for trolling. I just dabble in that.

  83. 83
    gbear says:

    @taodon:

    I give up.

    Just got onto my computer for the first time today. Read Balloon Juice. Signing off as soon as I hit send. Too much suck here but let me throw one bomb on the way out: Cassady, you are so fucking clueless.

  84. 84
    celticdragon says:

    @Cassidy:

    A “witness” is all it takes to start the ball rolling.

    Just ask the AirForce Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/.....rge-obama/

  85. 85
    inkadu says:

    @scott: Yeah, that’s the part I read… The first sentence says the Obama will ask the Defense Dept to be ready for the repeal — to have policies and procedures in place for a non-discriminatory environment; the second sentence says that he wants the military to be ready to re-enlist those expelled under DADT.

    It’s all contingent on congress repealing the law.

  86. 86
    Corner Stone says:

    @Ash Can: I just disagree.

  87. 87
    celticdragon says:

    @gbear:

    Cassady, you are so fucking clueless.

    Yep.

  88. 88
    Dr. Squid says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That and his pathological urge to banninate everyone who doesn’t freak out on cue is why I find his blog to be useless.

  89. 89
    Allan says:

    @zoe kentucky in pittsburgh: The problem for many of us in the LGBT community is this:

    For as long as we can remember, the Democrats have courted us for votes and campaign donations by proclaiming themselves to be our friends and allies, unlike those mean awful Republicans who want to destroy us.

    Then, when they are actually elected to office, they explain to us that the reason they can’t actually spend any of their political capital to pass legislation that benefits us is that if they do, there will be a backlash that elects those mean awful Republicans who want to destroy us.

    So you see, we just can’t actually do anything for you folks, and it’s for your own good.

    Oh, and click here to donate to my re-election effort.

    I’m insanely happy that Obama is our President. He is also the beneficiary of a lot of well-earned suspicion and mistrust generated by the history of his party’s conduct vis a vis LGBT issues. I believe he understands this, and doesn’t clutch his pearls (or give up in disgust like the John Coles of the world) just because people in historically mistreated communities are openly skeptical of his commitment.

  90. 90
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jody: But I’m being chastised for pressurring Obama. It’s not all whining on a blog, I hope you know.
    But when people say “words are good but we need something to hang our hats on” other people say, “Stop being little bitches! It’ll happen. No doubt!”
    Don’t you see the bifurcation?

  91. 91
    Cassidy says:

    @scott: That’s scary, given that you have stated clearly that you don’t know how DADT works.

    @Allan: Whatever. I’m not one of the ones freaking out over not having my pet project be first.

  92. 92
    lamh31 says:

    I have a question that maybe someone already answerd, but how many SITTING Presidents have agreed to speak before the HRC, or the GLBT community. Not FORMER…SITTING?

  93. 93
    Corner Stone says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    I will gladly put money on Obama ending DADT before the end of his first term. That is like free money. You are just being silly if you don’t think that is going to happen. Seriously, we are only 9 months in to the man’s first term. Histrionics aside, progress will come.

    Progress always comes, no matter what the foolish do to prevent it.
    How you wanna set it up? I’m more than happy to lose $100 to be proven wrong.
    Easiest $200 bucks Star of Hope ever received.

  94. 94
    J. Michael Neal says:

    You are, of course, absolutely correct that National Command Authority could, with the stroke of a pen, stop enforcement of DADT.

    No, he is absolutely incorrect in saying that. Read the fucking law people. The only exception it contains is that the president can rescind the expulsion in the case of someone who is claiming to be gay in order to get out of his commitment. That’s it. Nothing general.

    There is a section of a different part of the Code that people cite to the effect that the president can suspend expulsions, but they make sure not to include the whole thing, because that would make it apparent that it applies to a completely different set of circumstances, namely that the president can prevent an active duty soldier from switching over to the reserves. Again, that’s it. It has nothing to do with DADT at all.

    This means that the president can order the military not to enforce the policy, but they are expected to disobey an illegal order and continue to enforce it.

    I’ve cited all of this before, and I’m too busy to go digging through the US Code again to find it, so do it yourself.

  95. 95
    Brachiator says:

    @Cassidy:

    Because women and minorities are very clearly born the way they are. Homosexuality, despite a probable 100% agreement on this site that it is something people are born with, has not been determined to be genetic. So therefore, if it is a lifestyle choice, then it isn’t the same as others.

    People raise the genetic vs “lifestyle” argument because it appeals to informal discussions about rights, but it has nothing to do with fundamental rights. It’s funny, even Andrew Sullivan falls into this trap, somehow believing that if it can be conclusively proven that homosexuality is genetic, then tolerance and legal recognition can me argued for more vehemently.

    But your rights as a citizen includes the right to choose how to live your life, what religion you practice, and even who you want to marry.

    By the way, I note the unintentional oddity of your statement, “… minorities are very clearly born the way they are….”

    I don’t know anyone who is a born “minority.” Or a born “majority.”

  96. 96
    Cassidy says:

    @celticdragon: It would help if the circumstances of his “outing” were discussed. If you follow the link I provided, it takes quite a bit more than a witness to do anything.

  97. 97
    scott says:

    @Casside — Hmmm you’re a not just a bit of a homophobe but you’re one with poor reading comprehension skills.

    I never said I don’t know how DADT works. I know quite well how it works and if you got the impression that I said I didn’t from something I wrote then I apologize for writing poorly.

    Re-read my comments and I think you’ll find you’re in error.

  98. 98
    Corner Stone says:

    @zoe kentucky in pittsburgh:

    Corner does not represent us all, the fact is you can’t really hear the voices that say “settle down now, you’re not helping things” because it’s a much harder thing to say.

    I’m going to be presumptious and think this refers to me?
    I don’t claim to represent anyone but myself. I’m just agitating for equal rights for all. And lobbying Congress, and donating money, and writing letters and attending marches/protests, etc.
    Equal rights for all, equal justice under the law.
    That’s all I’m representing.

  99. 99
    mDee says:

    I’m curious — what message is it that the gay community is supposed to be embracing?

    The public message where he “says” he’s an advocate, or the behind the scenes message of “sit down, shut up, open your wallets and be patient because we have a lot on our plate and we’ll eventually get around to you when it’s more convenient for us, maybe in his second term”, from his administration? The second message is basically the same message Democrats have been shoveling to the gay community for decades.

    Words are not actions and Obama’s actions and those of his administration belie his words. Would other civil rights leaders embrace the nice intentions of the leaders of this country or would they be doing everything in their power to turn those intentions into actions, even to the point of making the leader’s political lives uncomfortable? You are telling the gay community to embrace a message. Not actions, not concrete results, a message.

    President Obama can say he’s an advocate for the gay community every day for the next eight years, he can give a thousand pretty advocate speeches from his bully pulpit and in the end it won’t mean shit if he doesn’t take concrete action (like put a temporary halt to that discharges and tell Reid to make reversing DADT happen) to change the status quo.

    P.S. Please don’t fall into the “compared to Bush” syndrome. You’re much better than that. Bush is irrelevant and the comparison insulting. We’re talking about a Democratic President being less than fervent about the civil rights of the gay community through either misplaced political pragmatism or typical political cowardice. That shit stings.

  100. 100
    DFS. says:

    All I can say to Sullivan et al. is, whaddaya gonna do, vote Republican?

    Except Sully might do just that. For all the good it would do him.

  101. 101
    Cassidy says:

    @Brachiator: Fair enough. How about born brown or with a vaj?

    Once again, this isn’t about my belief. I stated pretty clearly what I believe. I’ve simply said that framing gay rights as a civil rights issue, in comparison to minorities, etc., is a losing tactic.

  102. 102
    Nellcote says:

    from the text of the HRC speech:

    This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law.

    But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms.

    We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

    And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

    If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America.

    People need to stop acting like these actions are nothing. It’s not just about changing laws, but also about changing hearts and minds.

  103. 103
    Mnemosyne says:

    @taodon:

    Religion is a lifestyle choice and is protected by the Constitution, thereby invalidating that argument even if being gay wasn’t genetic.

    Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment, not the 14th, so (Constitutionally) the comparison between religion and homosexuality doesn’t work.

  104. 104

    I hope everyone here realizes that there is a lot of dissention in the LBGT community about strategy and approach.

    Thanks for this. I admit I have no idea how to publicly and constructively counter crap from our friends at NOM, etc.

    And on further consideration, people … complaining in blogs (or being flat out obnoxious [bows]) is SOP for the bloggosphere.

    I’m sure someone will nutpick to “prove” every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual on the planet hates Obama with the heat of a thousand supernovas but that will just confuse the righties no end.

  105. 105
    Cassidy says:

    @scott: NO, I drew my own conclusion after you stated your fear of a “witness” ending your career. Your fear is unfounded. First off, the only witness a CDR can use is what is deemed as a credible witness. You know as well as I do that there is no enlisted personnel who is considered more credible than a CSM/ SGM. And when you were a Gunny, only a CSM/ SGM would have been considered a credible witness against you. So, at the very least, in the last half of your career, during DADT’s lifespan, you were very easily protected by your rank. So, my conlcusion is that you either don’t know what DADT entails, or you’re engaging in hyperbole.

    And how exactly do you get homophobe? Because I haven’t jumped on the FU Obama bandwagon? That doesn’t make me a homophobe. I just happen to believe other issues have priority.

  106. 106

    @Celticdragon

    @Just Some Fuckhead:
    Go fuck yourself.
    Really.
    When you have your spouse being harassed at work, you’ve been stalked, threatened with violence in public and get fired from your job for no reason at all…get back to me.
    The President had a preacher give his invocation who compared my marriage to having sex with animals or raping little kids…and you want me to shut the fuck up??!
    Honestly, if you were here in person one of us would be in the hospital and the other one in jail. Maybe it’s best we just ignore each other.

    Shorter celticdragon.

    I have suffered more than anyone else in the whole wide world and no one can ever criticize me for anything, ever, because of my suffering, which I will now tell you about in great detail.

  107. 107
    scott says:

    @J. Michael Neal

    Actually, legal scholars on both sides of the issue tend to agree that all the president needs to do is to instruct the military to suspend the investigations under DADT ( a power he most certainly does possess) and that would effectively put an end to the law until congress decided to get involved.

    Its similar to the power the Justice Dept. has. There are laws on the books but they have no requirement that they MUST actively enforce all of them.

  108. 108
    Allan says:

    @Cassidy: I’m trying to decide who I respect more as a commenter on the strategy of linking LGBT equality with civil rights issues: Cassidy or Coretta Scott King.

    On April 1, 1998 at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, King called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”, King stated. “This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.” In a speech in November 2003 at the opening session of the 13th annual Creating Change Conference, organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, King made her now famous appeal linking the Civil Rights Movement to the LGBT agenda: “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

  109. 109
    Cassidy says:

    @Allan: I’m sorry, but at what post did I say that gay rights wasn’t a civil rights issue?

  110. 110

    @scott

    Eisenhower could have reversed Executive Order 9981 and re-segregated the armed forces, but that possibility didn’t stop Truman from signing the order in the first place.

    Well let’s see, Truman was going against his own party when he signed 9981, the challenge he faced in 1948 wasn’t from the Republicans, it was from Strom Thurmond and the racist Dixiecrats, members of his own party. The Republicans at the time were the party of civil rights, in name only, but they would have been unlikely to challenge 9981.

    There’s also the fact that if Obama uses an executive order to repeal DADT that it won’t be a Republican like Eisenhower, a decent and sensible man who didn’t have a lot of use for racists and so would have been unlikely to overturn 9981 in any case, running for the presidency in 2012 and 2016. It’s going to be some batshit insane right wing nutjob like Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty or Huckabee and what do you bet that they would promise to reinstate DADT by executive order and make it a huge theme of their campaign?

  111. 111
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Progress always comes, no matter what the foolish do to prevent it.
    How you wanna set it up? I’m more than happy to lose $100 to be proven wrong.
    Easiest $200 bucks Star of Hope ever received.

    Seriously?

    Just to clarify, you’re really willing to put $100 on the line that by 2012 (assuming we are not all actually Mayans by that point), DADT will not have been officially repealed by Congress? Three years from now? You feel that confident about making that bet, knowing the way things have progressed during the mere infancy of the Obama Administration?

    Fortune favors the bold, but certainly not the foolhardy.

  112. 112
    scott says:

    Jesus Christ on a crutch Cassidy — My career didn’t end because of DADT or my fear of it. My career ended because I did my 20 years and my Son was in the Corps and I liked the idea of of one of us not necessarily being at risk all the time.

    Do you read these comments by others and just make shit up in response to them?

    What I said was that I, and those like me, had to live in fear of being outed while we served. Period. End of Story. Oh, and then I said that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. And with every comment you post you prove my point.

    And to suggest that I was protected by my rank as a Sergeant Major of Marines because no one beneath me can testify against me demonstrates yet again that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    Here’s an example — I’m at a bar outside of Naval Station Rota on liberty. I meet and befriend a young Lance Corporal. We hit it off and end up having sex. He decides to report me because he wants out of the military and agrees to testify against me.

    Now, granted I’ve violated a non-fraternization policy but that’s a minor NJPable offense. The DADT violation however, will get fully investigated by NCIS ON THE SAY SO OF THAT YOUNG L/CPL ALONE.

    Also, you seem to think that there is no rank higher in the Corps than an E-9 ignoring the fact that there are a whole bunch of CWO ranks as well as 2nd Lt. all the way up to General who actually do, also, outrank even a sergeant major. All of whom are fully capable of instituting an investigation under DADT.

    So, I return to my original point. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

  113. 113
    Allan says:

    @Cassidy: Interesting dodge, Cassidy. People who are actually reading this conversation can clearly see that I made no such claim against you. I did not question your belief that gay rights is a civil rights issue. I was responding to your comment #101:

    I’ve simply said that framing gay rights as a civil rights issue, in comparison to minorities, etc., is a losing tactic.

    I simply provided a citation of an expert who disagreed with your opinion.

    This is not about me, no matter how hard you try to change the subject.

  114. 114

    @Cassidy

    @Allan: I’m sorry, but at what post did I say that gay rights wasn’t a civil rights issue?

    I dunno, it might have been here where you wrote.

    @Ash Can: You missed the point. Me, I have no doubts that people are born gay. That doesn’t change the fact that a significant portion of our population are either unsure, or believe that it is a choice. So, trying to frame the argument as a civil rights issue, in comparison to minorities women, is a losing argument.

    So if framing the argument as a civil rights issue is a losing argument then what are we to frame it as? A floor wax, a dessert topping, or both.

  115. 115
    Joe M says:

    Since my comment warranted a new post complete with block quotes (kudos, me), I’ll reply here. Can you even try, John, to understand why your original post aggravated me and many others? Thanks for re-iterating your original blog but I in fact did read it and understood it quite clearly. I just don’t think you (or many of your commentators) realize just how insulting and condescending the “Why so pissy, queers?” line of conversation comes across as being. You probs don’t intend it. But there it be. Thank you for pointing out that GW Bush was awful to gays and Obama is friendly. Also, Obama is busy. And hates being yelled at. Truly, this is news to me. I’m sorry, I don’t have a sarcasm emoticon. This is as close as I come —> :S

    Mistaking our frustration at Obama for “negativity” is just so ignorant it makes my skin crawl. This is our life. It’s not a political train of thought or a belief system or a “pet project”, as someone charmingly referred to Sully’s gay right’s concerns in your comments thread. It’s more than Sully or Avorosis or HRC or Dan Savage or some march on DC. I give a flying eff about speeches or dinners or marches.

    He is in charge. With a wide variety of options and tools and people to set in motion the righting of very serious, ugly wrongs. Serious and ugly wrongs that have a tangible effect on my life. He should not need persuading or his feet held over the fire. He should not need to be told. Whether it will be politically popular is a stupid question. Of course it won’t be. Fixing status quo discrimination in any form never comes easily, is never popular, is always an opportunity for bigots to wear it like a badge and asking “Would it even get the votes?” – again an infuriating comment to your post – only provokes my blood to boil.

    Is it selfish that I refuse to let my anger and frustration go, to let it ebb, the economy being so bad, the war being so wrong, the health care being so needful of reform? Perhaps. Perhaps it is. I don’t apologize for this. I don’t apologize for hearing Obama speak kindly and supportive and think “Nope” and give a thumbs down because once again saying and doing are so different. They share an -ing and little else.

    I suppose this will not be the end of this discussion. I suppose I will read more posts and comments asking us to please keep the whining down and anyway, y’all need to do something about it, don’t exect one man to do it for you and all that other…I’m sorry but just – horseshit. Just tripe in word form. We’ve done plenty. We will continue to do plenty.

    And when someone promises to help, we will not be satisfied until they actually do.

    I read and understood you clearly, John Cole of Balloon Juice. Can you say the same for me?

    P.S. You have very cute pets.

  116. 116

    @Allan

    @Cassidy: I’m trying to decide who I respect more as a commenter on the strategy of linking LGBT equality with civil rights issues: Cassidy or Coretta Scott King.

    Yeah, me too. Plus there’s the issue of who knows more about DADT, Cassidy, or some crazy guy like Scott who spent 20 years in the Corps and retired as a SMAJ.

  117. 117
    scott says:

    @Allan

    I think you and I are seeing a pattern emerge with Cassidy.

    You tell him something and he claims you said something else and that then proves his point.

    Its an excellent strategy for someone who is used to talking out his ass all the time because they always get to win the argument and be right, for no matter what you actually say they respond to what they want you to have said.

  118. 118
    Common Sense says:

    @Cassidy:

    Because women and minorities are very clearly born the way they are. Homosexuality, despite a probable 100% agreement on this site that it is something people are born with, has not been determined to be genetic. So therefore, if it is a lifestyle choice, then it isn’t the same as others.

    Religion is a choice. So we can order all the fundies to lose the crosses?

  119. 119
    Corner Stone says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Seriously?

    Just to clarify, you’re really willing to put $100 on the line that by 2012 (assuming we are not all actually Mayans by that point), DADT will not have been officially repealed by Congress? Three years from now? You feel that confident about making that bet, knowing the way things have progressed during the mere infancy of the Obama Administration?

    Fortune favors the bold, but certainly not the foolhardy.

    Yes I am serious. You act like it’s a foregone conclusion for some reason. So should HCR if rational decision making had anything to do with legislating.
    But it does not. I’m very comfortable betting along with inertia + wingnuttistan, and I frankly find it to be a sucker bet that anyone would take the opposite side from me.
    So yeah. I’m 100% behind my proposed bet that DADT will be in effect at the end of Obama’s term in office.
    Doesn’t mean I’m going to stop pushing for what I believe in, agitating for what’s right, and generally working to achieve something that would cost me the bet.
    But by the end of Obama’s term I will have spent many fold the $100 in time, effort and money to make DADT irrelevant. So I’m good with the $100 bet with you if you want to do it. I’ll contact you at your blog if you like.
    Hmmm. For some reason I thought you used to have a live link to a blog in your nom de Tunch.

  120. 120
    scott says:

    @Allen

    “….some crazy guy like Scott who spent 20 years in the Corps and retired as a SMAJ”

    Should be edited to read, “Some crazy GAY guy like Scott…”

    It takes a degree of crazy to spend 20 years in the Corps but its a whole ‘nuther type of crazy to spend that time as a gay man.

    I worry about my son who is also gay (go figure) and has been in the service now for 3 years. I told him he was nuts and he just looked at me and said, “Like father like son, huh pops.”

  121. 121
    Common Sense says:

    @John Cole:

    I think we are forgetting that some of the most obnoxious portion ofthe Hillary dead-enders came from the gay community.

    Oh, I remember.

  122. 122
    buggy ding dong says:

    @gwangung: What the hell does that even mean?

    The Congress is more than ready to pass this and Obama is the one holding it back. My fight? More than 60 percent of the country believes it is time to repeal it. The right wing is going to oppose anything we do and the people who most bitterly oppose this will never vote for us and are far more concerned with gay marriage as a fundraising and organizing issue.

    Not acting on this is just chicken shit.

  123. 123
    John Cole says:

    I just don’t think you (or many of your commentators) realize just how insulting and condescending the “Why so pissy, queers?” line of conversation comes across as being. You probs don’t intend it. But there it be.

    I never said or implied any such thing, and, in fact, have stated repeatedly that I understand why you would be pissed. This is the kind of dramatic bullshit that makes people like me want to kick puppies.

    What I have quite clearly stated is that YOU ARE SHOOTING AT THE WRONG PERSON.

  124. 124
    Cassidy says:

    @scott:

    had to live in fear of being outed while we served.

    And I say your fear is irrational. The requirement(s) that must be fullfilled is that 1) a credible witness report your behavior, 2) a person believably state they are a homosexual, and 3) a person engage in a “marriage” to another homosexual. At least one of those 3 requirements must be fullfilled for a CDR to initiate an informal inquiry. And once said inquiry is initiated, the first thing that happens is that the CDR calls the “accused” in and asks them, if they even listen to some such charges against a Senior NCO. 9 times out of 10 the CDR would completely disregard it as some joe holding a grudge.

    Now, in your example your first problem is you don’t shit where you eat. Being seen in a gay bar is not grounds for investigation, btw. So if you, or any random homosexual, were to engage in such risky behavior, then you are asking for UCMJ to be applied. OTOH, if said homosexual goes to work, does there job, and keeps their personal life serperate, then nothing happens. As I stated, more than one homosexual has served in the military, while not openly, with everyone being aware of who they are and not really giving a shit. They come to work, do there job, have a personal life outside the military and life goes on. They can even be actively involved in GLBT issues and activities and that still isn’t grounds for investigation. AAMOF, under DADT, you can act out every gay stereotype, while deployed, fuzzy slippers, pink boxers and all, and that still isn’t grounds for investigation.

    So, once again, your fear is irrational due to not really knowing how DADT is applied, or you’ve engaged in hyperbole.

    @Allan:

    I simply provided a citation of an expert who disagreed with your opinion.

    Well then let’s happily celebrate the accomplishment of equal rights for gays that has just recently happenned. Wait a minute….that hasn’t worked out so well has it. It may feel good to say, and personally I agree with the sentiment, but it doesn’t change how the masses view the issue.

  125. 125

    @Common Sense

    @Cassidy:
    Because women and minorities are very clearly born the way they are. Homosexuality, despite a probable 100% agreement on this site that it is something people are born with, has not been determined to be genetic. So therefore, if it is a lifestyle choice, then it isn’t the same as others.

    Religion is a choice. So we can order all the fundies to lose the crosses?

    I’m with you on that.

  126. 126
    Cassidy says:

    @scott: Shorter Scott: Another military guy is calling me on my bullshit and I don’t like it.

    Got it. I knew Marines werer touchy but jesus! Like a bunch of damn fa…

  127. 127
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Yes I am serious. You act like it’s a foregone conclusion for some reason. So should HCR if rational decision making had anything to do with legislating.
    But it does not. I’m very comfortable betting along with inertia + wingnuttistan, and I frankly find it to be a sucker bet that anyone would take the opposite side from me.
    So yeah. I’m 100% behind my proposed bet that DADT will be in effect at the end of Obama’s term in office.
    Doesn’t mean I’m going to stop pushing for what I believe in, agitating for what’s right, and generally working to achieve something that would cost me the bet.
    But by the end of Obama’s term I will have spent many fold the $100 in time, effort and money to make DADT irrelevant. So I’m good with the $100 bet with you if you want to do it. I’ll contact you at your blog if you like.
    Hmmm. For some reason I thought you used to have a live link to a blog in your nom de Tunch

    I’m not saying it’s a foregone conclusion by any means. What I am saying, however, is that I have confidence in the shifting political landscape, coupled with the larger articulated gameplan of the Obama Administration, that by this time next year, DADT will either be repealed or towards the tail-end of the process in making that happen.

    I think Congress will have worked a large portion of the rust off that caught them so off-guard when Obama handed them HCR initially. There’s already a bill circulating in the House with a 170+ co-signers, I believe (or an equally high number). I understand where you’re coming from, I just think you’re being entirely too cynical about how the momentum of progress is just now beginning to build a formidable coalition (as evidenced by that article in the Pentagon publication a few weeks ago stating that there’s no reasonable grounds for DADT to continue existing as policy). Much like you find my position a sucker bet, I would say the same from where yours is coming from.

    So, I don’t know how we go about setting this up, but let’s find a way to get it done. And hopefully, 5-8 months from now, we’ll be having a very different conversation in a very different (far more jubilant) thread.

  128. 128
    Gemma says:

    Okay, here’s what I don’t get, John. The first person you mentioned by name in your original post on this issue was Andrew Sullivan — and his criticisms of Obama on DADT and such are always surrounded by statements like “Full credit on other issues such as … ” and “I didn’t expect the moon, but … “. If Sully is any indication, then I think the attitude you’re criticizing would be better described as putting uncompromising pressure on Obama to act, as well as talking, on gay rights. And no, I don’t think it’s wrong to put uncompromising pressure on a politician who says he supports your cause, and I don’t think that weakens your team, and I don’t think it’s unconstructive.

  129. 129
    Beauzeaux says:

    I think Allan hit the nail on the head. A large part of the freakout in certain parts of the LGBT community is a direct result of many years of Democrats paying us lip service and making great promises during elections, taking our donations with a big smile, then once elected telling us that there was absolutely nothing they could do for LGBT rights.

    That said, on the whole I agree with almost everything Mr. Cole wrote.

    Please note that we are not all freaking out. Some of us remain guardedly optimistic that President Obama will fulfill his promise.

  130. 130
    Allan says:

    @Joe M: Careful, Joe. It makes John very angry when you point out that Obama could do more to advance gay rights. If you keep it up he’ll be forced to bring up the Village People and assless chaps.

    @Cassidy: Let’s reconvene on the topic of how this strategy has failed when Obama signs the Mathew Shepard Act into law with Judy Shepard at his side.

  131. 131

    Do you read these comments by others and just make shit up in response to them?

    Yes. SA2SQ.

    When the fit is upon him arguing with Cass. is the mental equivalent of trying to hold on to a greased racer.

  132. 132
    Corner Stone says:

    @Joe M:

    I don’t apologize for hearing Obama speak kindly and supportive and think “Nope” and give a thumbs down because once again saying and doing are so different.

    But He’s Your Ally ™! He’s On Your Side ™! Stop Shooting at Him ™! Stop Criticizing The Wrong Guy ™!
    Wait Your Turn ™! Other Things Now ™! Don’t Have the Votes ™! Generic Protest Against What You Want ™!
    Ad infinitum.

  133. 133

    @Common Sense

    @John Cole:
    I think we are forgetting that some of the most obnoxious portion ofthe Hillary dead-enders came from the gay community.

    Oh, I remember.Oh, I remember.

    That guy has to be some sort of ratfucker. Really, if I had been with the Clinton campaign I would have had him killed before he did more damage to the campaign.

    There’s another video featuring him. He really looks like Christoph Waltz, the actor who played Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds.

  134. 134
    Cassidy says:

    @Allan: Maybe I’m just more pragmatic than you. While I may personally believe that gay rights is a civil rights issue, I’m not gonna waste my efforts on a losing strategy. If an objective assessment of facts tells me that demonizing kittens is the best approach for meeting my goal, then I’ll be the first to burn a litter of kittens (in effigy). Just because something is the right thing to do doesn’t make it a winning argument. Unfortunately, the majority of American’s are just dumb enough where you have to tailor your strategy to their comprehension and within their viewpoint. Asignificant portion of people do not consider homosexuality genetic, despite evidence to the contrary. Therefore they do not thik gay rights are equivalent brown persons rights and people with vaj’s rights, because to them it is simply not the same thing. So, you can argue with them, and chance being unsuccessful because you can’t change their mind, or you can pick a winning strategy.

    Now as asked above, so how do you frame it? Well first, you have to take the gay off people’s minds. You say gay rights and they tune out. I always discuss this issue in terms that they are American’s who are not allowed the same rights and privileges as other American’s. And since the Constitution is supposed to represent all American’s, I have had a degree of success with this particular tactic. At the very least, I have been able to frame the argument in a way that a Conservative Christian can look at it without the whole abomination and sinner thing in the way.

  135. 135
    James K. Polk, Esq. says:

    I assume that many in the GLBT community voted for Obama for more than simply advancing gay rights.

    Taking your ball and going home is unfortunately not an option.

    Speaking to your local congresscritters is the most effective thing you can do. Send a handwritten letter, and gets your supportive friends to do the same. Doing virtually anything else is more productive than typing away angrly at a computer screen…

  136. 136
    John Cole says:

    @Corner Stone: You just completely ignored everything I have said. Instead of yelling at Obama because he has not unilaterally undone decades of anti-gay things, why do you not stand with him and work to get things changed. The President of the United States just stood up and affirmed your agenda and put his support behind it. And instead of running with it, you choose to bitch slap him.

    It makes no sense.

  137. 137
    scott says:

    @Cassiday

    Again I say, You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    USC 10: 654 is very simple. It states:

    Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
    (1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
    (A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
    (B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
    (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
    (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
    (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
    (2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
    (3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

    The specifics of how and in what manner DADT is applied varies from command to command granted. Some commands are very pink fuzzy slippers and feather boa friendly while others are highly aggressive in pursuit of the policy.

    The fact that you are unaware of this and seem to think that the military is blissfully gay friendly and applies the law uniformly is giving me pause to think that the nearest you’ve ever been to a military facility in your life was when you took the free tour of the aircraft carrier during your local Fleet Week celebration.

  138. 138
    John Cole says:

    @Allan: And now you are just being a dick again, Allan.

  139. 139
    celticdragon says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    Shorter celticdragon.

    I have suffered more than anyone else in the whole wide world and no one can ever criticize me for anything, ever, because of my suffering, which I will now tell you about in great detail.

    What a fucking laugh riot. A real knee slapper.

    Get a life, Wile whatever. Your windmill tilting thing is old.

    When you have to get a concealed carry permit to deal with the shit I and other GLBT people have dealt with regarding being stalked, harassed, bashed and potentially raped, then you have some standing to tell me to pipe down.

    Until then, you have no clue what garbage is flooding from your mouth right now. Buzz off.

    I have no intention of “shutting the fuck up”, and I will absolutely not back off, go away, “chill out” or in any way cease to be a thorn to this President and congress until...they actually do what they have promised to do.

    I don’t believe for a moment that they actually will.

  140. 140
    John Cole says:

    @Gemma: I think a lot of what caused Sullivan’s post last night was not Obama, but Sullivan’s years old feud with HRC.

  141. 141
    Common Sense says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    I have to say in separating Hillary from her more… flamboyant supporters that she has done an exceptional job as Sec State IMO. She’s kept her mouth shut and had as much as anyone to do with Obama’s Nobel Prize.

    WRT the gay rights advocacy, arguing Obama has failed on gay rights is like saying JFK and LBJ were massive FAIL with regards to civil rights. I mean, it took JFK three whole years to even get a bill to Congress, and even then they didn’t pass it till LBJ took over. Since LBJ didn’t get it done until 9 months after taking office himself obviously he didn’t care about those darkies either.

    Nor did Lincoln. I mean come on, the dude waited until half the country seceded to even pretend that slaves (in a country he no longer controlled rather than one he actually could do something about it in) were citizens. What a poser.

    Here’s how I look at the debate. I think those pushing for gay rights yesterday are the [URL=”http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401801988.html”]immediatists[/URL] of our era.

    IMMEDIATISM. The drive to end slavery at once, known as immediatism, had its origins in British abolitionists’ frustration in the 1820s with Parliament’s gradual approach to abolishing slavery in the West Indian colonies. The American abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison adopted the concept when he founded the antislavery newspaper the Liberator in 1831 and helped to establish the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. Using as a model the conversion experience of the Second Great Awakening, Garrisonian abolitionists wished to convert Americans to a belief that slaveholding was a sin. A sinner, once aware of his or her sin, should cease sinning immediately. Supporters of immediatism rejected moderate approaches to ending slavery such as colonization or political reform and demanded total emancipation and equal rights for black Americans. Most Americans did not support immediatism because it threatened too many economic and racial interests and because it seemed rash. Garrison believed that the U.S. Constitution was a pro-slavery document. Some of his supporters even called for a secession of free states from the Union. Once immediatism proved ineffectual, Garrison’s argument that political action would compromise abolitionist principles was rejected by some abolitionists, who by the late 1830s were entering the political arena.

    Lincoln on the other hand was a gradualist, which is where more along the lines of where I stand. They argued that slavery would die a natural death as new states were added that voted through popular sovereignty to reject slavery, eventually isolating the original slave colonies in an increasingly tinier minority. They argued that instituting radical overhaul would cause too much social disruption, as most Americans, even if opposed to the idea of slavery, were still unwilling to support such major upheaval if it were dictated from above.

    I believe that the Abolitionist movement needed the Immediatists. Without them constantly fighting for reform nothing ever would have changed. They gave the movement a conscience. Their argument was that Lincoln’s approach to ending slavery was too pragmatic, too cold and calculating. Where is his heart, his passion for those poor women dying in childbirth, the child forced to plow fields while new states are slowly added and change comes at a glacial pace? It was furious criticism like the above that kept Lincoln (and other Presidents who are credited with winning the fights of common men) on track. Without it they might have compromised forever.

    But the pressure comes through public advocacy and through protest at the local level. Convince your Congressman, or convince your neighbors to vote him out.

  142. 142
    Corner Stone says:

    @Midnight Marauder: I’ll tell you what – I’ll give you 2 to 1 odds against DADT being repealed by the time the next Congress is seated. You say roughly this time next year? October 2010?
    I think each new Congress is seated in Jan. So I’ll bet you my $200 against your $100 that by Jan 2011 DADT will still be in effect.
    You call it cynicism, I say realism.
    I’m agreeable to finding an up man (or woman) to hold the money, or we can just keep a marker here as we go along since I’m not going anywhere til Cole bans me.
    (As long as it isn’t TZ since he welches on his bets as is.)
    I’m picking Star of Hope.
    SOH

    (click the SOH as it’s a link)

  143. 143
    Allan says:

    @Cassidy:

    Now as asked above, so how do you frame it? Well first, you have to take the gay off people’s minds. You say gay rights and they tune out. I always discuss this issue in terms that they are American’s who are not allowed the same rights and privileges as other American’s.

    Which begs the question, “WHY isn’t this particular group of American’s (sic) allowed the same rights and privileges as other American’s (sic)?” Which leads us back to the uncomfortable reality that these are Americans who couple with members of their own gender.

    You can’t take “the gay” out of the discussion of gay rights. I think this strategy can best be described as the “try not to think of an elephant” approach.

  144. 144
    kay says:

    @Beauzeaux:

    President Obama, Congress, and the courts.

    Energy legislation stalled in Congress. Midwest democrats can’t vote for it. It’s complicated, but they’ll really risk a challenge if they back it. Last week, the EPA announced they were writing rule changes (under a 2007 SCOTUS decision) to reduce emissions. Today, two Senators, a democrat and a Republican, announced they’ll be moving on energy. That’s not a coincidence.
    I’m not an environmentalist, but I admire the hell out of their approach to activism. If one avenue is blocked, they go the other way. They plan 5 years ahead (in this instance) and they always, always move forward. They laid the groundwork for this in the Bush years, in the courts. When Obama took office, they had Plan A and Plan B (and probably C and D).

  145. 145
    Cassidy says:

    I didn’t say that the military was blissfully gay friendly. But, a very clear set of requirements must be met before a CDR can even engage in an inquiry. Unless of course they want JAG to pull it apart and a LOR.

    But it’s good that you at least looked a the law. My next suggested stop would be to find CDR’s Guidance for implementing the policy. I did provide you a link further up, but I’ll leave it to you to find.

    As for the other stuff…blah, blah, blah. I’m deployed nowand it ain’t my first one. And that’s an Army deployment, not some pansy ass 4-7 month shit the other services do. So far you sound to me like the typical Senior Non-com, who has heard about a policy but not bothered yourself to actually be knowledgeable about it. There is a reason that SGM’s have a reputation for being some ignorant fools. You’re probably one of those fools who thinks that “add to, but not take away from” means you can ignore regulation and “add to it” your own made up shit.

  146. 146
    celticdragon says:

    @Corner Stone:

    We are the biggest damned cash cow saps on the planet.

    2016 at least before we see real action.

    Didn’t this President say he could walk and chew gun at the same time?

    My bad.

  147. 147
    Allan says:

    @John Cole: And is my being a dick causing irreparable harm to the LGBT equality movement?

    Or forcing you not to support LGBT equality?

    Do we ALL have to be Sidney Poitier?

  148. 148

    It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team

    You know what? We don’t need you telling us what to do. You obviously have no clue what is going on in the grassroots LGBT community, so kindly butt the hell out. When they start legislating away YOUR rights, and blowing smoke up YOUR ass, we’ll listen to what you have to say. Until then STFU and let us get on with the business of securing our civil rights.

  149. 149
    Cassidy says:

    @Allan: It doesn’t matter. You do what works. Yes, I’m an ends justify the means kind of guy. Being that my brother is gay, I do have a limited stake in seeing gay rights be achieved. But I also think the shit’s just wrong. So like I said, burn a kitten, beat a puppy, step on some rabbits….whatever. If it gets the job done, then I’m for it. I’m not for wasting time and energy trying to convince people that “it’s the right thing to do” because I personally don’t enjoy being ignored.

  150. 150
    scott says:

    @Cassidy

    “There is a reason that SGM’s have a reputation for being some ignorant fools. You’re probably one of those fools who thinks that “add to, but not take away from” means you can ignore regulation and “add to it” your own made up shit.”

    Doesn’t it???

  151. 151
    Nellcote says:

    @buggy ding dong:

    The Congress is more than ready to pass this and Obama is the one holding it back.

    Linky, please.

  152. 152
    celticdragon says:

    @scott:

    lOL!

    You should have in the Cav… :)

    Out Front! and all that good stuff.

  153. 153
    Tom in Texas says:

    I have to say in separating Hillary from her more… flamboyant supporters that she has done an exceptional job as Sec State IMO. She’s kept her mouth shut and had as much as anyone to do with Obama’s Nobel Prize.

    WRT the gay rights advocacy, arguing Obama has failed on gay rights is like saying JFK and LBJ were massive FAIL with regards to civil rights. I mean, it took JFK three whole years to even get a bill to Congress, and even then they didn’t pass it till LBJ took over. Since LBJ didn’t get it done until 9 months after taking office himself obviously he didn’t care about those darkies either.

    Nor did Lincoln. I mean come on, the dude waited until half the country seceded to even pretend that slaves (in a country he no longer controlled rather than one he actually could do something about it in) were citizens. What a poser.

    Here’s how I look at the debate. I think those pushing for gay rights yesterday are the Immediatists of our era.

    IMMEDIATISM. The drive to end slavery at once, known as immediatism, had its origins in British abolitionists’ frustration in the 1820s with Parliament’s gradual approach to abolishing slavery in the West Indian colonies. The American abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison adopted the concept when he founded the antislavery newspaper the Liberator in 1831 and helped to establish the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. Using as a model the conversion experience of the Second Great Awakening, Garrisonian abolitionists wished to convert Americans to a belief that slaveholding was a sin. A sinner, once aware of his or her sin, should cease sinning immediately. Supporters of immediatism rejected moderate approaches to ending slavery such as colonization or political reform and demanded total emancipation and equal rights for black Americans. Most Americans did not support immediatism because it threatened too many economic and racial interests and because it seemed rash. Garrison believed that the U.S. Constitution was a pro-slavery document. Some of his supporters even called for a secession of free states from the Union. Once immediatism proved ineffectual, Garrison’s argument that political action would compromise abolitionist principles was rejected by some abolitionists, who by the late 1830s were entering the political arena.

    Lincoln on the other hand was a gradualist, which is where more along the lines of where I stand. They argued that slavery would die a natural death as new states were added that voted through popular sovereignty to reject slavery, eventually isolating the original slave colonies in an increasingly tinier minority. They argued that instituting radical overhaul would cause too much social disruption, as most Americans, even if opposed to the idea of slavery, were still unwilling to support such major upheaval if it were dictated from above.

    I believe that the Abolitionist movement needed the Immediatists. Without them constantly fighting for reform nothing ever would have changed. They gave the movement a conscience. Their argument was that Lincoln’s approach to ending slavery was too pragmatic, too cold and calculating. Where is his heart, his passion for those poor women dying in childbirth, the child forced to plow fields while new states are slowly added and change comes at a glacial pace? It was furious criticism like the above that kept Lincoln (and other Presidents who are credited with winning the fights of common men) on track. Without it they might have compromised forever.

    But the pressure comes through public advocacy and through protest at the local level. Convince your Congressman, or convince your neighbors to vote him out.

  154. 154
    John Cole says:

    @Allan: What the hell are you talking about? You’re just being a dick, is all.

    @garychapelhill: You surely have a keen sense in how to build a winning coalition. Telling people who support your cause to STFU while you all moon the first President to endorse your cause, and do so publicly, sounds like a really solid start. I remember how when the United Way solicited a donation from me, the first thing they did was call my mom a whore and then tell me to fuck off. I couldn’t wait to help after that.

    For your next move, I suggest you all try blaming black people for Prop 8 passing in California. Oh, wait.

  155. 155
    celticdragon says:

    Amend to “You should have been in the Cav”

  156. 156
    Cassidy says:

    @scott: No. You can’t use the excuse of add to but not take away from to completely counteract a regulation or policy. You can try, but you can also be challenged and lose.

    For instance: If General Whatshisnuts says it’s okay to wear sunglasses in formation, and puts it in a policy letter, the CSM doesn’t get to “add to” and say it’s not okay in his formations. Unless of course, said policy letter states it’s at the CDR’s discretion.

  157. 157
    Crucible says:

    @John Cole: I don’t believe you intended to lecture gays, but your original post unfortunately came across that way. You wrote:

    Yes, you have every right to be pissed at the current state of affairs, because I sure would be pissed at being treated as a second class citizen if I were gay.

    Maybe it was just a bad choice of words on your part, but we don’t need you to give us the right to be angry at the current civil rights climate. That’s the part that came across as condescending, even though I don’t believe you meant it that way.

    In any case, on the larger point I agree with you. We should all be working together to make sure Obama lives up to his promises. Given recent history, some of us are a little more skeptical about the chances, but our goals are shared.

  158. 158
    celticdragon says:

    @Tom in Texas:

    Lincoln on the other hand was a gradualist, which is where more along the lines of where I stand. They argued that slavery would die a natural death as new states were added that voted through popular sovereignty to reject slavery, eventually isolating the original slave colonies in an increasingly tinier minority.

    That worked out real well…

  159. 159
    Nellcote says:

    btw nice to finally see a few more people of color on the podium at the DC rally today.

  160. 160
    Joe M says:

    “YOU ARE SHOOTING AT THE WRONG PERSON.”

    Jesus Christ in heaven. Is that what I’m doing? I’m going thru these comments and I’m seeing that Obama is being “attacked”, in one case, “abused” and I think to myself, “those pioneering lads at Gitmo have nothing on us gays”. We can torture with a snide blog post. And we’re good at it!

    If you insist on maintaining an air of annoyance at the fact that the GLBT and every other letter community feels the need to express anger and frustration at the lack (Yes, I said it – lack!) of action on issues a politician promised us, well I will have to insist on being reverse-double annoyed at being compared to a raging mob climbing the white house gates with pitchforks screaming “Get the political staller!”. Our record of promises v. action regarding politicians is very poor, so forgive us our impatience. I don’t think this is friendly fire, John. Understand the distinction. Our guns are pointed at the religious right every day, all day. We could use some help.

    OH! I have one more thing to add. This:

    “I have suffered more than anyone else in the whole wide world and no one can ever criticize me for anything, ever, because of my suffering, which I will now tell you about in great detail. ”

    You, kind sir, can suck a wang. A big one. While the initial post may have had a touch of the capital H hysteria, please don’t mock gay people. Which ya did, Blanche. Ya did.

  161. 161
    Beauzeaux says:

    @kay: Excellent strategy. I wish the HRC were that smart.

  162. 162
    scott says:

    @celticdragon

    “You should have been in the Cav”

    Thanks Dragon but I’m a Marine and proud 0311/8541 (now 0317).

    And besides, just between you and me…..the Army is waaaayyyy too gay.

  163. 163
    Joe M says:

    “For your next move, I suggest you all try blaming black people for Prop 8 passing in California. Oh, wait.”

    Cute. Thanks for painting the entire gay community with the widest, most-juvenile brush. Beginning to regret even engaging you on this issue.

  164. 164
    burnspbesq says:

    @celticdragon:

    What a fucking laugh riot. A real knee slapper.

    Get a life, Wile whatever. Your windmill tilting thing is old.

    When you have to get a concealed carry permit to deal with the shit I and other GLBT people have dealt with regarding being stalked, harassed, bashed and potentially raped, then you have some standing to tell me to pipe down.

    Until then, you have no clue what garbage is flooding from your mouth right now. Buzz off.

    I have no intention of “shutting the fuck up”, and I will absolutely not back off, go away, “chill out” or in any way cease to be a thorn to this President and congress until…they actually do what they have promised to do.

    I don’t believe for a moment that they actually will.

    Explain to me again how gratuitously insulting people who are on your side, and whose support you desperately need in order to get any meaningful action on your agenda, is a winning strategy.

    Also, if you sincerely believe that, then the only logical thing for you to do is emigrate. There’s the door. You can either use it, or you can stick around and be part of the solution. Or, if you’re not willing to do either of those things, then just get the fuck out of the way and let the adults get the job done.

  165. 165
    burnspbesq says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Everything except the last two paragraphs in comment 163 is a quotation. Only the last two paragraphs are mine.

  166. 166
    celticdragon says:

    @Joe M:

    While the initial post may have had a touch of the capital H hysteria, please don’t mock gay people. Which ya did, Blanche. Ya did.

    Hysterical? Not so much. Coldly furious at things that have happened to me, my family and friends. There’s a reason why I am armed. I will not acquiesce to snide condescending hogwash from people who haven’t the first clue what they hell they are gabbing about.

    I don’t tell African Americans to “shut the fuck up” when they see Professor Gates being arrested by a white cop in his own yard.

    I don’t need Quioxte or anybody else telling me what my life experiences and reaction are or should be, thank you very much.

    For all that, thanks for the comment in any event. Nicely put.

  167. 167

    @ john cole. Why would we want you as a member of our coalition when you’re treating us like a patronizing prick? Typical hetero tunnel vision. We will get our rights with or without you. I’m not the United Way, and I’m not asking you for charity (I know, I know, I’m supposed to be SHOCKED and HUMBLED that a non gay actually supports my civil rights, right?) Most morally sound people support what is right regardless, and don’t need to be coddled by those being oppressed to join them. You really have no idea what you’re talking about, but go on spouting off to us about what we should and shouldn’t do. If you are going to print this kind of whitewashing without really exploring the facts of Obama’s record on gay rights, you better expect some pushback. If you don’t like it, well that’s your problem.

  168. 168
    Cassidy says:

    And besides, just between you and me…..the Army is waaaayyyy too gay.

    Obligatory joke about sheep and Marines and Navy ships.

    Look, all traded insults aside, and I’ve got a pretty thick skin, all I’m trying to say is that there are people, and I’ve worked with some, working in the military who are are also gay. It’s an open secret. Personal life stays personal and everyone does there job. Yes, some COC’s are unduly aggressive against it, but they also have a large burden of proof to meet before they can even initiate an investigation. It isn’t as easy as you intially made it sound. And from the “middle management” perspective, most of us are gonna defend a good troop.

  169. 169
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    I swear, nothing like a good all out flame war on gay rights and dem politicking. You could take any one of the past threads on this topic and just switch the dates and no one would notice much.

    I sometimes wonder if the firing in all directions is what wounded wordpress in the first place.

  170. 170
    burnspbesq says:

    @garychapelhill:

    We will get our rights with or without you.

    Really. How’s that going to work? Demographics and simple electoral arithmetic suggest otherwise.

  171. 171
    John Cole says:

    @Crucible: That wasn’t “giving you permission,” that was empathizing.

    @Joe M: @Joe M: Joe- I’m not doing anything of the sort, I’m merely pointing out that alienating people is not productive.

    I’ve moved considerably on these issues in the past few years to the point that I now am a full-fledged supporter of gay marriage. Yet that is in spite ofthe gay rights movement, bot because of it. Every time these issues come up and folks like me say “Hey, you might want to try a more productive course of action,” and fifty people in the comments descend to tell me to STFU, or I don’t know what I am talking about, or that “we know what we are doing- we are just working to secure our rights,” or that I have somehow offended someone by using the wrong words.

    This is how you treat your allies?

  172. 172
    Allan says:

    @Joe M: Apparently, the typing of words in the English language and uploading them to websites, when practiced by homosexuals, is the equivalent of assassination.

  173. 173
    John Cole says:

    @garychapelhill: Good luck. They change majority rule to 5-10%? Christ.

  174. 174
    Mnemosyne says:

    @buggy ding dong:

    The Congress is more than ready to pass this and Obama is the one holding it back.

    So Sen. Gillibrand was unable to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal DADT because Obama is personally holding holding it back?

    (See #38 and #41 if you aren’t sure what I’m talking about.)

  175. 175
    celticdragon says:

    Explain to me again how gratuitously insulting people who are on your side, and whose support you desperately need in order to get any meaningful action on your agenda, is a winning strategy

    .

    Also, if you sincerely believe that, then the only logical thing for you to do is emigrate. There’s the door. You can either use it, or you can stick around and be part of the solution. Or, if you’re not willing to do either of those things, then just get the fuck out of the way and let the adults get the job done.

    For one thing, I don’t recall addressing anything to Wile until he chose to be a ass regarding something I had not directed towards him.

    If you want to characterize yourself as an “adult”, then show me where the hell you have actually acted on it.

    By all means.

    Participated in rallies? Tried to meet with legislators? Supported your PFLAG or gay/straight alliances?

    Have you?

    I will take it back in an instant…but I suspect not. We get the same “sussing” from our”betters” on the fine art of shutting the fuck up and letting the “adults” raid our pocketbooks at expensive dinners.

    And you wonder why we are angry…

  176. 176
    John Cole says:

    @Allan: ahh, so when I say shooting at the wrong people, you are pretending I mean with actual bullets. I guess it must be my hetero tunnel vision again, but is there no such thing as metaphors in the gay community?

  177. 177
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole:

    You just completely ignored everything I have said. Instead of yelling at Obama because he has not unilaterally undone decades of anti-gay things, why do you not stand with him and work to get things changed. The President of the United States just stood up and affirmed your agenda and put his support behind it. And instead of running with it, you choose to bitch slap him.

    But this just isn’t true John. Instead of insisting others take a step back, get perspective and chillax, can”t you do the same for a change?
    I have never, ever, ever demanded Obama do a damn thing unilaterally. That’s just a lie, or misrepresentation to be generous.
    But leaders lead. They fucking lead man. I’m not asking him to push through something that just doesn’t have the votes. But fucking fight for equality! Why not? What’s to be lost? The nutters will fight even harder against you? He’s concerned he’ll rile up the nutter base? Or maybe cause those against any of his agenda to mobilize?
    I’m not asking the elected President of the US to do anything by himself. That’s just not what this is about.
    Giving speeches to HRC is all nice and good but where is he in calling leaders of Congress to the WH and asking them to get something to his desk? The economy? The HCR? The Russkies?
    I mean really man, where do we go next if equality is too hard a concept to ask your elected leaders to fight for?
    I don’t want anyone to crash and burn over a single issue, even when it is so important to me as an equal rights concept. But I do demand they do more than just give a speech at a forum designed to welcome these words.
    WORK FOR IT! Or why should I work for you? Is it a one way street? Or maybe I should form a PAC or lobby group.
    That would get his attention.

    This is one of the many sociual causes where your true conservative nature just shines through. I’m not being a dick about that, I just feel it’s the truth. You’re a conservative individual by nature and you prefer to let things take their “natural” course.
    We’re going to disagree on tactics and strategy here because I’d prefer for all our citizens to be equal, and I’m willing to back that up, fight for it, spend for it, organize for it.
    You’d prefer to call them bitchy self-defeating whiners who should find someone other than the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD to help them.

  178. 178

    Really. How’s that going to work? Demographics and simple electoral arithmetic suggest otherwise.

    wow I didn’t know John Cole was that big of a demographic.
    how many electoral votes does he have?

  179. 179
    Crucible says:

    @garychapelhill is one of the nuttier long-time PUMAs.

    It’s distressing that they’re now here injecting their unique brand of poison into this discussion. As much as I’d like to see Obama do a better job in a number of areas (e.g., government secrecy, indefinite detention, gay rights, etc), the crap the PUMAs spew about Obama is just off the rails and outright false.

    Gary, buzz off.

  180. 180
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    And besides, just between you and me…..the Army is waaaayyyy too gay.

    Yes, our GI wetsuits would never stop full metal jacket dildos/

  181. 181

    Hey celticdragon, have you ever considered that the reason that all of this stuff happens to you isn’t because you’re LGBT but is instead because you’re an absolutely miserable excuse for a human being? I mean that little rant of yours to Just Some Fuckhead where you said

    Honestly, if you were here in person one of us would be in the hospital and the other one in jail. Maybe it’s best we just ignore each other.

    is pretty telling. I’ve generally found that the people who threaten violence in internet forums are not only miserable human beings but also incredibly unlikeable asswipes who are completely and totally incapable of understanding what incredibly unlikeable asswipes they are.

  182. 182
    Allan says:

    @John Cole: Is there no such thing as sarcasm in the straight community? Because I really wouldn’t want to live there without it.

  183. 183
    burnspbesq says:

    @celticdragon:

    Participated in rallies? Tried to meet with legislators? Supported your PFLAG or gay/straight alliances?

    Yes, yes, and yes. As noted above, I have a gay kid. Being on the sidelines is not an option for me.

  184. 184
    celticdragon says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    Well excuse the hell out of me, jackass.

    You weren’t part of what was said, but you can’t resist the urge to get into the middle of something else that didn’t concern you.

    Try not to remind anyone what hideous people you are while we try to get this shit done.

    I stand by my statement. Go get a life and mind your own damned business.

  185. 185

    @Celticdragon

    Participated in rallies? Tried to meet with legislators? Supported your PFLAG or gay/straight alliances?

    Yes I have, even though there are lots of fucking assholes like you at them. And I donate to the campaign for referendum 71, because while I think you deserve to suffer for being miserable, whining self-pitying excuse for a human being (have you ever posted anything on BJ where you weren’t whining?) I don’t think you should be discriminated against for being LGBT. Oh, and some of my best friends are gay too.

  186. 186
    celticdragon says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    I bet real money you would be ready to slap/punch/connect boot with ass- the hell out of somebody if they said that to you irf…

    which was the point I was getting across.

  187. 187
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    OT

    Since the Browns finally won a game, anything is possible.

    GO Brownies/

  188. 188
    kay says:

    @Beauzeaux:

    I know. I’ve been watching them work away my entire adult life. They take these huge crushing hits, and they’re right back at the courthouse.
    When you consider the massive profit motive of their opponents, it’s David and Goliath, and I don’t care how many donors they have, they’re outgunned. I completely admire them.

  189. 189
    celticdragon says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    because while I think you deserve to suffer for being miserable, whining self-pitying excuse for a human being

    You really are a sick fuck. Really. Get help.

    There are professionals for that kind of …whatever problem you have.

  190. 190
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @John Cole:

    I think we are forgetting that some of the most obnoxious portion ofthe Hillary dead-enders came from the gay community.

    Yeah, remember Myiq.2xu?

  191. 191
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    And the Ravens lost to, er (cough) the Bengals, What a shame.

  192. 192
    Allan says:

    Shorter generic straight person comment:

    It sure would be a lot easier to support gay rights if you gays weren’t such fags.

  193. 193
    Common Sense says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I seem to remember myiq loved the ladies. I always thought the HRC thing was a cheap ploy to get in a pair of panties with him. The “Sensitive Guy” tactic of the truly pathetic.

  194. 194
    mcc says:

    I haven’t read the comments in either this discussion or the previous one. Here are my thoughts on the subject in general. Read them if you want.

    I consider myself a gay rights activist. Last year I volunteered for the Obama campaign but also volunteered for No On 8. Off and on this year I’ve been volunteering for the Prop. 8 repeal. I’ve tried to follow every development on the gay rights agenda this year as closely as I can.

    As I see things, there is only one thing that matters, and that is results. I want to see stuff happen. I want to see laws overturned, policies changed, concrete changes toward equality in our society.

    So let’s say I grade on the scale of results.

    By this standard, Obama, Pelosi and Frank are doing a fantastic job. We’ve already seen more progress this year than in the entire 2007-2008 Congress. Whatever it is they’re doing, it’s delivered us already parity for LGBTs on hate crimes law, will deliver for us by the end of the year passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and (according to the schedule Pelosi laid out at the beginning of the year and which so far has not been deviated from) before the 2010 elections will deliver us an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

    When I turn this same standard on the set of internet activists you refer to in your OP here, on the other hand, they don’t come across so well. For this group of activists the focus seems to be exclusively on pressuring the Democratic leadership and the focus seems to be exclusively on DADT and DOMA. This doesn’t seem to me like the most productive use of activist energy. To me the most productive use of activist energy seems like it would be focusing on state marriage/relationship laws, particularly those in Maine and Washington, or pressuring Congress to hurry up and fence-sitters to get on board on ENDA– because these are things where movement is both achievable and badly needed this year (I don’t see how pressuring Congress on DADT can make much difference until ENDA has passed at least one house). All the activists I meet in the offline world seem to treat the most important things to be doing right now as walking neighborhoods for a prop. 8 repeal, and phonebanking into Maine to protect marriage there. These seem to me like extremely productive uses of time.

    The internet activists who treat Obama/Pelosi/Frank as the problem seem by and large (though maybe I misunderstand them on this specific point) to put less emphasis on things like local marriage laws and usually no emphasis at all on ENDA. (I honestly can’t understand how some people can place so much emphasis on DADT while seeming not to care ENDA exists. DADT is certainly a lot more dramatic but passing ENDA benefits a much larger portion of the community– I know I certainly would feel like I benefit more from ENDA passing.) If I ask that question about results– what is this particular group of activists achieving?— I have a lot of trouble coming up with an answer. The Join the Impact protests at the beginning of this year, triggered by Prop. 8, seem to have reached a lot of people and made a noticeable difference in the public debate. I have a much harder time (at the moment, maybe it will make more sense in retrospect) identifying exactly what the NEM is achieving. As for what is achieved toward our cause by attacking the President for giving a pro-gay speech to a gay rights organization, I don’t think I can identify anything at all.

    (Also, since you bring him up in the original post, by this standard Andrew Sullivan specifically is of negative worth. Andrew Sullivan actually opposes what progress we have seen this year; he opposed the hate crimes bill outright, has opposed ENDA in the past, and seems to be trying to avoid discussing the ENDA question now– as far as I know he has not at any point acknowledged ENDA is under consideration.)

    The people in this last group snap at any criticism of what they do or say by suggesting you’re trying to shut them up, or repress them, or somehow put gay rights on hold. That isn’t it at all. All I want is for people to think about what they’re doing. Is this helping our actual goals? If not, why are you doing it?

    As for Obama, if there is something I wish Obama were doing differently, I wish he would use his office to campaign against Prop. 1 (Maine marriage ban) or Ref. 71 (Washington Domestic Partnership ban), at least to the minimal extent of endorsing a no vote like he did with Prop. 8 last year. Given his speech last night specifically endorsed equality for gay couples and claimed opposition to “stopping laws designed to take rights away”– a vague phrase, but one he’s used in the past specifically to refer to things like Prop. 8 or Prop. 1– it seems really strange he just can’t come out and state support for, say, domestic partnerships in Washington, or opposition to the ballot measure that would take them away. I wish I knew of some way to change his behavior on this particular issue.

  195. 195
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    It sure would be a lot easier to support gay rights if you gays weren’t such fags.

    Wut? This is the inevitable point in these debates, when the silly reaches critical mass, explodes and covers everyone one with teh stupid.

  196. 196
    John Cole says:

    @Allan: Still winning hearts and minds, ehh? Now do we get the spectacle of someone saying “Hey- I have lots of gay friends!” You really are helping the cause.

    Let’s all step back from the keyboard for a half hour. I’m as abrasive and obnoxious as anyone, and I know know when I need to calm down. Theoretically, we are all on the same side of the issue.

  197. 197
    celticdragon says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Yes, yes, and yes. As noted above, I have a gay kid. Being on the sidelines is not an option for me.

    Then bravo and well done. The issue between me and Wile whoever is somewhat inexplicable. I have never directly addressed him until tonight that I know of, so I am not really getting why he launched into a personal attack considering I wasn’t talking to him at all.

    What JSF said was disgusting, and I gave him an honest and direct rebuttal. I absolutely would have slapped/struck him (repeatedly) had he made the comment to my face. I do not apologize for that.

  198. 198
    Konrad2 says:

    @garychapelhill: “Why would we want you as a member of our coalition when you’re treating us like a patronizing prick? Typical hetero tunnel vision. We will get our rights with or without you.”

    Um. Ok.

    Half of America supports gay civil unions. Many of them, like me, don’t have passionate feelings one way or the other. I think that LGBT people should have all the legal rights of marriage, etc., while religious marriage is up to the churches, as I see religious marriage to be a religious institution, which the civil part isn’t. You need people like me to agree with what you want to do.

    A minority, no matter how vocal, will not get things done in a democracy by themselves. That’s a good thing, too, since there is the 29% fringe on the right who really believe that what they are doing is right.

    Civil Rights in the 1960s didn’t happen because of Brown vs. Board of Education, it happened because a majority of the country saw how brutal and racist the state governments in the South were. LBJ deserves credit for pushing the Voting Rights Act through, but it wouldn’t have happened without a majority of the country supporting it.

    Same with the abolition of slavery in the US in 1863-1870.

    Same with the abolition of slavery in the UK in the 1820s-30s.

    Same with the democratization of Europe in the 19th century. It wasn’t because of revolutions by the intellectual few, it was because of statesmanship combined with supporting majorities.

    If you want LGBT people to have the same rights as straight people, you will need to convince us. And you are fighting with organizations like FotF and NOM that know their audience and are very good at what they do.

    If you’ve seen “Milk”, then that is exactly what you need to do. I want you to succeed, and I want equal rights for all Americans. But to get them, you need those tunnel-visioned heteros to agree with you.

  199. 199
    celticdragon says:

    @John Cole:

    Let’s all step back from the keyboard for a half hour. I’m as abrasive and obnoxious as anyone, and I know know when I need to calm down. Theoretically, we are all on the same side of the issue.

    Agreed. This is getting out of hand and I don’t need to be this angry over a comment thread. I’m taking my kid to the bookstore for a bit.

  200. 200
    Allan says:

    Actually, John, the time for you to have calmed down was before you created a second thread in one day to over-react to criticism you received from people who thought you over-reacted to criticism others directed at Obama.

    But stopping now, though too late, is better than continuing, so I thank you for that.

  201. 201
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole:

    I remember how when the United Way solicited a donation from me, the first thing they did was call my mom a whore and then tell me to fuck off.

    Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a whore?
    Dalton: Is she?

    Couldn’t resist. Not saying anything about anybody just having a flashback to The Greatest Fucking Movie Ever!

  202. 202
    scott says:

    @Cassidy

    I’ve gotta “bounce” as the kids these days say but let me just put this out there for you before I do.

    You’re seeing this through the eyes of a straight man serving in the Army who clearly has very few problems serving with gays — your homophobic comments notwhithstanding.

    That I think accounts for what many gay service members, myself included (obviously) would take as a pretty condescending attitude on your part.

    You don’t see any problem, therefore, in your mind, there is no problem.

    Lets say for the sake of argument that your assertion at the difficultly level for initiating at DADT investigation is correct (and I’m not for a second saying that you are) what do you think happens to service members who actually become the targets of investigations? If it becomes formalized, there is a record of it and it is forever attached to your name even if you don’t get discharged.

    And even if it isn’t formalized, for many Marines at least since we are a small insular community, a whiff of something “untoward’ could be a career ender most ricky fucking tick because we all talk and we all end up serving with the same people over and over during the course of our careers.

    I can’t speak to the Army since I’m not a doggie, although I’ve spent time during my career with SOC units and did some extensive training with the Rangers, but I imagine that the SOC community is much like the Marines in that reputation is everything and as you advance your career your reputation is what precedes you.

    So having an allegation made against you — especially one of homosexuality and even if unproven — can effectively end careers. And to say that you as a mid level enlisted man is “gonna defend the troop” is absolutely admirable but if I’m a homophobic Battalion Commander presented with even half assed evidence that one of my men is queer, what some buck sergeant says in that persons defense ain’t gonna mean shit to me. I’m going to find a way to get him out of my unit and I’m going to let his new unit CO know why he’s been transferred and its all gong to be very unofficial if need be.

    Removing that stigma by repealing DADT won’t eliminate the prejudices that people feel towards us gays but it can serve to accomplish exactly what the Truman military integration order did — make it essentially illegal to discriminate. And that’s what made the military the single most successfully colorblind organization in America in spite of the fact that there were and still are a whole lot of racists in it.

  203. 203
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @celticdragon:

    What JSF said was disgusting, and I gave him an honest and direct rebuttal. I absolutely would have slapped/struck him (repeatedly) had he made the comment to my face. I do not apologize for that.

    And yet, you personally made my original comment look prescient. You must be a ratfucker.

  204. 204
    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal) says:

    You are a bold man John…lol!

    Since this is clearly a non-productive blogging bloviathon that doesn’t actually accomplish anything, I will keep my ‘contribution’ to the minimum (tilting at windmills and all that).

    Obama says he is on your side and you know that he is the guy who signs bills passed by congress, thus making them law. Congress is not on your side and will not write a law that you would like to have signed by your guy (who clearly supports you). So what do you do?

    Beat up on Obama and give congress a pass.

    You don’t want a president, you want a king. You want a declaration by one man to end it all and make everything better when you damn well know that this one man does not make law and he can’t make everything better. You don’t want to make the sausage machine pump out sausages in the flavor you like, you want them given to you. You want Obama to act like Bush the Deciderer and just shove it down the throats of every single person. No holding congress accountable for their inaction, just go after one of the most important people you have ever had your side and try to get him to give you what you want.

    In other words, take the easy route.

    Obama said ‘make him do it’. He has clearly said he will support your cause but you  have to make it happen. Put a bill in front of him that gives you what you want and he will sign it. Who writes the bills? Congress. If you want things to happen, guess where you need to focus your efforts?

    Hint: It ain’t Obama or his kneecaps.

    That is all I have to say in this thread as I refuse to get pulled into the donnybrook of suck that this issue quickly becomes once the mouth foaming begins. While reading some of the foamier ranting online I keep reminding myself that the foamies are not even close to being representative of everyone involved in this issue.

    And that’s a good thing for them.

  205. 205

    @celticdragon

    Then bravo and well done. The issue between me and Wile whoever is somewhat inexplicable. I have never directly addressed him until tonight that I know of, so I am not really getting why he launched into a personal attack considering I wasn’t talking to him at all.

    It’s a blog, dimwit. If you’re on a blog, being a total fucking tool and threatening people with violence then everyone gets to pigpile on you and tell you what a total fucking tool you are. You’re just another tool like Cassidy. He’s a straight tool, you’re an LGBT tool, but your respective orientations aren’t the issue here, only your essential nature as tools.

  206. 206
    Corner Stone says:

    John Harwood on NBC right now – (paraphrase) FUCK YOU GLBT COMMUNITY!
    as quoted from WH sources.

  207. 207
    Crucible says:

    @John Cole: You wrote:

    I’ve moved considerably on these issues in the past few years to the point that I now am a full-fledged supporter of gay marriage. Yet that is in spite of the gay rights movement, bot because of it. Every time these issues come up and folks like me say “Hey, you might want to try a more productive course of action,” and fifty people in the comments descend to tell me to STFU, or I don’t know what I am talking about, or that “we know what we are doing- we are just working to secure our rights,” or that I have somehow offended someone by using the wrong words.

    I think it’s fantastic that your thinking on these issues has evolved. Please interpret my last sentence as a sincere expression of happiness, not as a condescension, even though I can easily see how it might be interpreted that way.

    Communication and conversation are difficult. On the one hand I wouldn’t want you to second-guess everything you write; you probably wouldn’t be as successful a blogger if you did. On the other hand, a little more care might go a long way toward avoiding confusion. When you say that Andrew Sullivan and “the rest of the crowd” are short-sighted and need more perspective on this issue, it’s easy to (mis)read that as an attempt to lump all gays together.

    You’ve made it abundantly clear that you have no animus toward gays. So I certainly will never mistake your criticism of gay political or media figures for something it is not. But please don’t mistake this gay person’s skepticism of a political figure as anything other than what it is: a recognition gained through years of experience that political promises — particularly in this realm — are too often unfilfilled. It doesn’t mean I don’t like Obama or that I don’t support most of his agenda. I’m just realistic.

  208. 208
    Brandon says:

    Man, I’ve just read this whole thread and John is right, @Allan is a dick.

  209. 209
    D-Chance. says:

    Eh, it’s NBD.

    But, for what it’s worth, equal rights is equal rights… why should homosexuals be denied the joys of divorce and alimony and resentful ex-family? The children don’t know what they’ve been spared all these years…

  210. 210
    wrb says:

    @Crucible:
    Anyone who made a single post disagreeing with garyatchappelhill at The Confluence got banned.

    I got banned for pointing out that he’s changed the meaning of a quote by deleting half the sentence.

    Truely one of the craziest and nastiest of the PUMAs

  211. 211
    zoe the dyke in pittsburgh says:

    Shorter generic straight person comment:

    It sure would be a lot easier to support gay rights if you gays weren’t such fags.

    Oh, faggot, please. First of all, there are more of us in the LGBT community than just fags (remember, there are dykes and transfolk as well) and no one here is actually rejecting our agenda whatsoever– we’re merely disagreeing about the timing.

    Right now any attempts to punish and shame the most pro-LGBT rights sitting president doesn’t make any sense. Give him a chance, he has other things understandably at the top of his agenda right now. Let’s stop being so distrustful and angry of everyone, especially our allies, K? Obama is an ally, he has already proven that in words, the deeds will follow.

    Should we put and keep pressure on Obama? Hell yes. But demanding that he do everything now, now, now or he’s soft on LGBT rights? C’mon, isn’t there at least a small part of you that thinks that he’s just waiting for a slightly better moment than right now? Like AFTER health care reform passes?

    C’mon, this is a room of actual allies here– beating up on them and picking fights makes no sense. We are all on the same team. Sometimes many of us in the LGBT movement are really quick to think that everyone secretly hates and rejects us. We need to get over that if we’re going to build stronger bridges with other folks.

  212. 212
    CaseyL says:

    Hey, it’s like the good old days, when everyone yelled at everyone else, and the thread ran to 300+ comments!

    Generally, when trying to figure out whether someone is moving quickly enough or not on a basic civil rights issue, I defer to the people whose civil rights are at stake. In this case, that’s LGBT people – who seem by a narrow but real majority to agree Obama is dragging his feet on DADT.

    However, insofar as I have a political philosophy, it’s utilitarianism (i.e., “greatest good for the greatest number). And, from that perspective, I have to agree that healthcare reform is a higher priority right now, affecting all citizens regardless of gender identification, and I want Obama to focus on that.

    After healthcare reform, I do think Obama should, and will, focus more on DADT.

  213. 213
    Nellcote says:

    @mcc:

    Thank you for your post.

  214. 214
    plaindave says:

    I see this as more than an equality issue. DADT weakens our military in the most effective manner possible – eliminating Arabic translators we cannot afford to lose. Is it wrong to consider gay rights secondary to national security?

  215. 215
    Joe M says:

    @John Cole: Darlin’, I’m not interested in making this a long drawn-out argument. I see you have your hands full here as it is and I gots a new Mad Men on in a few but I’ll leave with this:

    Productive.

    A Productive course of action.

    I don’t know why we hadn’t thought of that. The on-going discrimination, religious-based bigotry, the obvious un-American inequality that we’ve been fighting ever since congressmen floated a bill to quarantine all gay men, HIV+ or not, just a few short decades ago, the commercials comparing us to sex-obsessed boy diddlers, the endless referendums to beg straight people to give us fucking crumbs and then being made to feel like jag-offs because we feel like shit because they can’t be bothered – just need to be dealt with…productively. I will endeavor to write this in my journal and consult it when I feel we are getting nowhere. I’m sorry if that’s unproductive to feel that way. I’ll try and fix that.

    You know, it’s actually not George Bush’s legacy Obama is fighting on gay rights. It’s Clinton’s. Knowing this helps you understand so much. I know Obama is trying. I feel he is sincere. Warms my heart, it does. His speech, while welcome, is no longer enough. I stopped being dazzled by the President showing up at gay parties when Clinton did it and truly, if anyone needs to be blamed for the current “I’m just not satisfied at your heartfelt speech you made at that pricey gay gala” attitude currently in vogue with us gays, look no further than Bill C., who talked the talk while walking right into the Oval Office to cigar-fuck a girl young enough to be his daughter while bragging to the fundies that he signed DOMA. Wanna know why we just can’t be sat-is-fied? There ya go! I’m not justifying it. It’s just – we’ve heard speeches before.

    When the President does something. Anything. The smallest thing other than “Lesbigays and T’s, I just don’t feel like you’ve pressured me enough” and we react with raspberries and blog posts filled with big words, you have my permission to be appalled.

    One last thing: being compared to a Clinton supporter during the primaries STUNG, my brother. STUNG.

  216. 216
    wrb says:

    @ John Cole

    I’ve moved considerably on these issues in the past few years to the point that I now am a full-fledged supporter of gay marriage

    I’ve moved too.

    Not because I don’t still think that gay marriage wouldn’t increase the discrimination against us unmarrieds as the combined marrieds direct resources toward their oh-so-precious state but because the “this will destroy the bleeding sanctity of our marriage” via the gravity waves treacle is just slightly more nausea inducing.

    But it remains close.

  217. 217
    Brandon says:

    @zoe the dyke in pittsburgh: actually, it would be easier if you would take that enormous chip off your shoulder

  218. 218
    Malron says:

    Wow.

    This entire thread is reminiscent of the inflammatory discussions I had to wade through in a Facebook Obama group right after the election, when numerous members felt that since there was some exit poll from CNN suggesting that blamed the success of Proposition 8 on black people (not black Californians, mind you, black people) then in their view it was OK for gay people to refer to black people as “Ni@@ers”. In fact, at many of the Post_Prop 8 rallies, gay minorities were treated to that same mindset.

    I wish I was making that up.

  219. 219
    Terri says:

    While I understand that this sounds like same shit, different day, I believe we have the strongest advocate ever in Obama. I am willing to give the man time, while he builds political capital with passing health care reform. I need affordable health care right now, more than I need a wife. My anger, as should be all our anger, is with the impotent Democratic leadership. What, exactly, have Harry Fucking Reid, and Nancy Pelosi done to help Obama with his agenda? Not much. Two festering pimples on the ass of progress.
    I agree with John. Our rage is badly misplaced. Light a fire under the worthless asses of your Senator or Rep. An Executive Order is only good until the next bible-thumping yahoo gets in there.

    Cassidy: I bet you consider yourself a real progressive, don’t you?

  220. 220
    mcc says:

    Nellcote, you’re welcome…

    Brandon: … did you even read zoe’s post before posting that reaction? Or rather, did you not notice the first paragraph was an artifact of Balloon Juice’s blockquote bug?

  221. 221
    Terri says:

    @DougL(frmrly Conservatively Liberal)

    Yes. Absolutely.

  222. 222
    Comrade Darkness says:

    Someone lit the fire in John’s belly. Nice post.

  223. 223
    TenguPhule says:

    What, exactly, have Harry Fucking Reid, and Nancy Pelosi done to help Obama with his agenda? Not much.

    Whereas the number of landmines they’ve carelessly thrown in his way would span many pages.

  224. 224
    Comrade Darkness says:

    @Joe M: Did you watch this video? Seems to me everyone has a serious case of ignoring historical context.

    (sorry if this has been posted already, I just got here)

  225. 225
    Joe M says:

    @Comrade Darkness: I did. I was simply trying to make the point that it’s Clinton’s shadow Obama is living in with regards to the President’s relationship with the gay community, not GW Bush’s.

  226. 226
    TenguPhule says:

    C’mon, isn’t there at least a small part of you that thinks that he’s just waiting for a slightly better moment than right now? Like AFTER health care reform passes?

    In all fairness to the LGBT group, they should keep the pressure on so that equality doesn’t get forgotten.

    But frankly, right now their messaging fucking sucks.

  227. 227
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Personally, I believe in the sanctity of Divorce. Without it, there would be permanent war, I am certain.

    Someone lit the fire in John’s belly.

    That would be Tunch sensing weakness.

  228. 228
    Joe M says:

    @TenguPhule: So what? We aren’t talking about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Congress. We are talking about Obama. Stop shifting focus.

  229. 229
    Lenny says:

    I’m sure this has been covered John, but there’s a lot wrong with your argument and a lot of what’s been posted in support of your argument. First, Obama, and you I imagine, do not and probably cannot understand the deep emotional hurt mixed with elation many of us felt last November when Obama won and Prop 8 passed. It was like being at your best friend’s wedding, where you’d just learned your child had died but couldn’t tell anyone, lest it ruin the celebration. So when Obama picked the one guy, the one guy, in the country who was not only from California but was instrumental in getting Prop 8 passed, and had said some despicable things in so doing, to give the invocation… well you can imagine. Boy, did that set a lot of people on edge. And then it quieted down for a bit. The country was in a mess, he’d just gotten sworn in.. he was with us, we knew he was because he said so. And then he defended DOMA using exactly the same arguments, including incest and polygamy, that the Bush administration used. And then he refused to put a “national security” moratorium on DADT enforcement, which, sorry, I can’t imagine would have caused much blowback. But he doesn’t do it. Why? Because too much is going on in the country. Would someone please tell me when too much wasn’t going on in the country?

    So, it’s all words, we’ve all heard the same words before. It’s possible that he means it. But guess what happens next year? Mid term elections. Guess what possibly happens after mid term elections? The Dems lose control, or most definitely lose significant leverage, in the House.

    And then what? We can’t wait for his second term where he’ll probably lose control of the Senate as well.

    Or maybe wait through the next Republican administration because he sure as hell isn’t going to “waste” political capital in 2011 when his re-election campaign gears up again and he’s spent about all the political capital he had left.

    You, know that urgency of now thing Obama used to get elected? Well it’s here. It’s now. There may not be a tomorrow.

  230. 230
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    So what? We aren’t talking about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Congress. We are talking about Obama. Stop shifting focus.

    No, we are talking about society as a whole not being ready to accept homosexuality. The pols on the dem side, including Obama, and even some on the right are but vessels of the straight peoples mindset or willingness to accept your lifestyle. The fight over gay marriage and DADT is a proxy war in the struggle to break free of those ancient primal fears involving sexuality. Your real fight is with the straight voting public in America and their fears and bigotry/

    When the next generational shift that is occurrng, is completed, you will have full rights. You are asking now, that dem politicians commit political suicide in an all out effort to go against the will of the majority of voters. That surely isn’t fair and is unwise when we have the possibility of President Sarah Palin et al as the cost of going against the will of most voters.

    My guess is that DADT is currently not being earnestly enforced as we speak, and will be repealed sooner rather than later. But DOMA will not be no matter what Obama does. It will require a 2/3 vote in congress which is not likely for some time to come. Though a SCOTUS decision in the interim could make it null and void.

    So you want Obama to go full throttle for your cause to what end. So you can feel better he’s on your side, while there is zero chance CC;rs will vote to repeal DOMA, and in the meantime alienate the voting public, albeit a wrong thinking one, and get himself defeated and the wingnuts in power. Sorry, I don;’t support that.

  231. 231
    celticdragon says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    because while I think you deserve to suffer for being miserable, whining self-pitying excuse for a human being

    Is really such a great comeback for thinking I was being mean to JSF.

    If there is a broken tool out here, you are the one I’m thinking of. How about I engage in some Jungian projection and wish you were a miserable, self pitying excuse for a human?

    No thanks.

    I have no idea what kind of person you are. I accused you of taking apparent offense at something that was pretty specifically not aimed at you.

    The fact that you veer so widely into the vivid and venomous projection above says far more about you then you might wish to admit.

    I don’t wish anything for concerning you other than get a clue and figure out that if somebody else says something offensive about group A, maybe it isn’t your place to get full of misplaced self righteous indignation and engage in asshattery when member of group A issues tart rejoinder and suggests there would be a fight involved had that been a face to face conversation.

    If you don’t like it, then mind yer own Goddammed business.

    Buzz off.

  232. 232
    Terri says:

    Thanks, but my “lifestyle” as you so glibly put it, is the same as any business owning, taxpaying, single parent.

    God, I hate that fucking phrase

  233. 233
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Terri:

    Sorry, I only know what they call it on teevee. I will be happy to use whatever term you like. Seriously :)

  234. 234
    celticdragon says:

    @Lenny:

    So, it’s all words, we’ve all heard the same words before. It’s possible that he means it. But guess what happens next year? Mid term elections. Guess what possibly happens after mid term elections? The Dems lose control, or most definitely lose significant leverage, in the House.

    And then what? We can’t wait for his second term where he’ll probably lose control of the Senate as well.

    Or maybe wait through the next Republican administration because he sure as hell isn’t going to “waste” political capital in 2011 when his re-election campaign gears up again and he’s spent about all the political capital he had left.

    You, know that urgency of now thing Obama used to get elected? Well it’s here. It’s now. There may not be a tomorrow.

    Exactly.

  235. 235
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    No, we are talking about society as a whole not being ready to accept homosexuality.

    Bullshit. As usual the public is way ahead of policy. Some 60%+ of the public is against DADT.
    And, as usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about:

    My guess is that DADT is currently not being earnestly enforced as we speak

    10,000 in 10 years

    So you want Obama to go full throttle for your cause to what end.

    Nope. Just not accurate.

  236. 236
    cat48 says:

    I was at Sully’s blog this a.m. He says the Hate Crimes bill the house just passed was “HOOEY”. I laughed out loud. The Congress has been trying to pass that sucker since 1999. Here we are in 2009 and it will finally pass the Senate next week and be signed into law. No matter though, now it is “hooey.” I’m sure Matt Shepherd’s family and friends don’t feel that way.

    Frankly, I think most of the rage is from the Bush and Clinton administrations and prop 8. BHO didn’t even come to DC until 2005, but everything is entirely his fault. Alrighty then.

  237. 237
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Go drink some whiskey corner stone, and get your mind right. I could care less what you think and that is well known.

  238. 238
    geg6 says:

    I have read this whole thread in which I am sad to see a huge circular firing squad and only found one poster who makes an excellent argument and that frames the issue exactly as I would. And does it calmly and logically. So, thank you, mcc. What you said.

  239. 239
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: We all understand your capacity for FAIL in logical arguments. That is what’s well known.
    It’s not my problem you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and subsequently choose to spout from your ass.
    Par for the course. Meh.

  240. 240
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Go drink some whiskey corner stone

    As an aside – I’ve never understood the derision some here have for adults who enjoy alcohol. I mean, the front pagers here routinely sign their posts/comments with +5 etc, et al, too, also.

  241. 241
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Now, now, no need to pout and preen, buckwheat.

  242. 242
    matoko_chan says:

    Let meh introduce you to some more gamerspk.

    WAI– working as intended.
    That is what the uberlords of Blizzard always say when the playahs whine and bitch about some percieved ingame injustice.

    Obama is WAI.
    For w/e reason….it is not strategic for O to raise a snifit about DADT in this slice of spacetime….perhaps he just wants to get stealth care passed (that is what i call the opt-out plan) or perhaps he wants the JCS to PUBLICALLY beg him to do something about DADT….i dunno.

    He ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.

  243. 243
    Steve T. says:

    Maybe I’m naive about how Washington works, but isn’t there a tactical reason to hold our fire while the health care thing gets worked out? This is Obama’s first big push for domestic policy change, and a huge change it is. What happens will affect how he is seen going forward. If HC reform succeeds, he will be seen as holding and wielding power greater than any Democratic president in decades, not since LBJ or even FDR. At that point, having beaten back the wingnut hordes and shown them to be toothless, won’t he have increased clout to move ahead on things like DADT/DOMA? But if HC reform crashes and burns, he’ll take a big hit in power and influence and may not be able to get repeal of DADT/DOMA anyway. Certainly he’ll have other things on his mind.

    These things are important to me. Five years ago I was fired after ten years from the only job I ever really wanted, at least in part for being gay, I’m sure. If ENDA had been in place, I’d have sicced it on my boss’s ass in a heartbeat. But it wasn’t. So I WANT it enacted, and DADT/DOMA repealed, but if I have to wait, I’ll wait. Hissy fits don’t help anything.

  244. 244
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:I wish I had as much hair as buckwheat did. I would totally wear that shit teased straight up.

  245. 245
    Brachiator says:

    @Cassidy:

    Once again, this isn’t about my belief. I stated pretty clearly what I believe.

    I didn’t assume that you were stating your personal beliefs.

    I’ve simply said that framing gay rights as a civil rights issue, in comparison to minorities, etc., is a losing tactic

    .

    Here, I think you are simply wrong. As I state before, the either/or of lifestyle choice vs condition of birth is not only wrong-headed but irrelevant to the our foundational concept of rights.

    The Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but does not ground this in pursuits based on ethnicity or gender.

    The Bill of Rights protections for religion does not have a clause, “the religion that you were born into.”

    I noted that there is an informal belief that if something is genetic or inborn, then somehow this is more authentic than something that you choose. But there is no practical difference between a deeply held personal belief and say, being born into a Catholic family and continuing that religion.

    The real issue is that foolish fundamentalists try to diminish homosexuality as an whimsical arbitrary lifestyle choice and then demand that this “choice” never be made.

    And yes, there are those who don’t see the battle for gay rights as the same as the struggle for civil rights, but these people are wrong, and fortunately are being displaced by a younger generation for whom being gay is largely a non-issue.

  246. 246
    Keith G says:

    As a gay BJ-er a’hem….guy, it’s too bad I seemed of have missed the fun.

    My 2 cents, John you are correct and screw the rest. I am so tired of uppity pearl clutching queens (and I can say that) getting the vapors because Obama isn’t blowing them a kiss.

    Puhleeeeese.

    Contrary to Sully and Aravoises, healthcare and then economic recovery are the greatest needs for the greatest number of my gay brothers and sisters. Not all of us can live in DC and commune with the Olympian host.

    On an earlier thread I made this comment,

    “…I have felt for some time POTUS’s goal was to get the Pentagon to do some of the heavy lifting on this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10…..tagon.html ….”

    The whining is just a silly waste of time by a mostly privileged section of a sub group of this society.

  247. 247
    mcc says:

    My guess is that DADT is currently not being earnestly enforced as we speak

    This is nonsense and wishful thinking. The figures on DADT discharges are public knowledge and closely tracked by any number of institutions. Consistently about 600-700 servicemembers have been discharged each year this decade, going up to at least the end of 2008*. I do not believe any hard figures have been released for 2009 so far but if DADT implementation had changed under the Obama administration someone clearly would have noticed by now. If nothing else, given the massive and sustained criticism the Obama administration has come under for failing to alter DADT enforcement pending a legislative repeal, had DADT enforcement changed under the Obama administration the Obama administration would surely be bragging about that fact!
    * This is, for anyone who thinks DADT is an improvement over the previous policy, no fewer than would have been discharged for being gay under the pre-DADT policy where homosexuality was outright banned– the number of such discharges in 1992, the last year before DADT, was 720. Actually the number of people discharged for being gay increased massively after DADT was passed, consistently reaching to well over a thousand per year. The number of discharges per year then decreased precipitously to that annual 600-700 number, in what I’d expect is not a coincidence, sometime around September of 2001…

  248. 248
    mcc says:

    Aaand I’m not really sure why that last paragraph is bolded. I guess because I used an asterisk.

  249. 249
    henqiguai says:

    @General Winfield Stuck (#241):

    Now, now, no need to pout and preen, buckwheat.

    So, now you’re bringing race into this (damned near) 300 entry rant ?

  250. 250
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Steve T.:

    It is understandable that some folks are very angry at having to wait for something that should be basic rights. Sometimes I wonder if these threads are mostly a kind of therapy to vent the frustration with the realities of political tactical reasons you state. So the anger doesn’t really bother me. But someone has to point out what is at stake for the entire stage where the wheels of democracy sputter and churn and play out to get things right.

  251. 251
    Corner Stone says:

    @Steve T.:

    Maybe I’m naive about how Washington works, but isn’t there a tactical reason to hold our fire while the health care thing gets worked out?

    Sure. If you believe the two things are related in some perverse way. Some people suggest that time is needed and the agenda needs to be cleared first. Some people say we need to back off while Obama uses his political capital to make HCR a reality. And some say that if you’re Muslim you can’t be free.

  252. 252
    celticdragon says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    It is understandable that some folks are very angry at having to wait for something that should be basic rights. Sometimes I wonder if these threads are mostly a kind of therapy to vent the frustration with the realities of political tactical reasons you state.

    Maybe. I can’t really account for just how furious some of this thread has made me, so you may be onto to something.

    I will point out that the “buckwheat” appellation was not cool at all. I don’t know if you are aware of the racial connotations it has, but that was not a good thing to put out there, fwiw.

  253. 253
    matoko_chan says:

    And some say that if you’re Muslim you can’t be free.

    ummm….i’m a muslim….what does that mean?

    also, too.
    Ted Olson’s lawsuit.
    Now that would be sweet….a SECOND Roe v Wade to drive the Teabag Demographic insane for next half century or so.

  254. 254
    Shade Tail says:

    @Keith G (#246):

    Looks like I missed the fun also (thank goodness). And you’re absolutely right. Personally, I’m so sick of watching all the concern trolling and gnashing of teeth.

    These people are ignoring the clear fact that Obama is in favor of LGBT equality, and pretend that “just words” aren’t worth anything. They’re worth a lot. It is an act of political courage for a major politician to so plainly speak out in favor of LGBT equality; that isn’t exactly an uncontroversial position.

    And when it comes to specifics…

    Agree or not (I don’t entirely), it makes sense to go through the Congress to end DADT rather than just use an executive order to end enforcement of it. That is much more permanent and difficult to reverse.

    Mr. Cole is absolutely right. Stop treating our greatest ally like our worst enemy.

  255. 255
    Ed Marshall says:

    There were cases scheduled for the Supreme Court that the major advocacy groups agreed to scuttle because Obama had promised them he was going to address the issue himself.

    He has to do this. He doesn’t have to do it right now, but if he doesn’t deliver it would be a bigger backstab than anyone here seems to realize. If he punts this, he destroys about five years of legal work aimed at the constitutionality of the law.

  256. 256
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @henqiguai:

    So because Buckwheat was played by a black character in Our Gang that is bringing race into the discussion. Buckwheat is a term depicting a wide eyed kid as played on Little Rascals.

    And least when I use it, that’s what I use it for. Maybe Eddie Murphy can clarify.

  257. 257
    celticdragon says:

    @Shade Tail:

    Stop treating our greatest ally like our worst enemy.

    Fair enough…when he actually starts acting like an ally.

    You know, when he doesn’t have major backers of prop 8 up on stage who also compared us to child molesters and dog fuckers, or when the Justice Department stops defending DOMA…

  258. 258
    celticdragon says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    So because Buckwheat was played by a black character in Our Gang that is bringing race into the discussion. Buckwheat is a term depicting a wide eyed kid as played on Little Rascals.

    I kinda thought that was what you were getting at, but it has real negative connotations in some corners as a racial stereotype. Enjoy watching Lttle Rascals…I certainly do!

    Just don’t call people “Buckwheat”. Not a good idea at all, and one that can really get you tarred as a race baiter when you don’t meen anything of the sort.

  259. 259
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @celticdragon:

    I don’t know if you are aware of the racial connotations it has

    No I am not. And neither was the guy who him on the show, Billie Thomas

    Thomas always defended his work in the series, pointing out that Buckwheat and the rest of the black Our Gang kids were treated as equals with the white kids in the series.

    Please leave the PC police out of this thread. Thank You.

  260. 260
    Elie says:

    Davis X. Machina @ 57

    You got that absolutely right…absolutely, scarily correct…

    The political environment in this country right now is as dangerous as it ever could be… The left is as unstable and as authoritarian as the hard right — they just want to cram down “our” issues —

  261. 261
    Ed Marshall says:

    The DOJ represents the United States of America in all matters pertaining to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter if the law is bullshit, DOJ has to defend it. If they didn’t it would be something like your defense attorney going to court and telling the judge that his client is guilty.

  262. 262
    henqiguai says:

    @General Winfield Stuck (#256):

    So because Buckwheat was played by a black character in Our Gang that is bringing race into the discussion. Buckwheat is a term depicting a wide eyed kid as played on Little Rascals.

    And least when I use it, that’s what I use it for. Maybe Eddie Murphy can clarify.

    Um, no. Was being entirely a smart-ass; but since I can in no way rise to the level some here routinely achieve, I generally restrain myself. But as someone just a little later pointed out, “Buckwheat” has denigrating racial overtones, in these United States. Stepinfetchit played a wided eyed train porter in some funny scenes; still ain’t cute. I know for which I speak.

  263. 263
    Mnemosyne says:

    Here’s the thing about Prop 8, and this is coming from someone in California who saw all of the ads on TV and gave money to No on 8:

    The No on 8 folks fucked it up. Sorry, but they did. They were way ahead in the polls and decided to play it safe while the Yes on 8 folks went for the jugular and bought ads outright telling people that their kids were going to be taught about buttsex in the schools. Meanwhile, the No on 8 campaign was basically, “Sure, we know gay people gross you out, but is that any reason not to give them equal rights?” It wasn’t until the last couple of weeks that the No on 8 ads started fighting back, and by then it was too late.

    The No on 8 folks screwed themselves, and then they thrashed around trying to find someone else to blame. Not only will I never give them another dime, I want my money back from the first time I donated since they basically flushed it down the toilet with the world’s weakest ad campaign.

  264. 264
    celticdragon says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    PC police?

    Not me. I don’t really have a dog in the fight, but you will certainly hear from others on it if you use it again.

    *shrug*

    Rock on.

  265. 265
    henqiguai says:

    @henqiguai ( me at #262):
    Damn, blockquote fail, and I know why. Entirely my own fault, too.

  266. 266
    Elie says:

    celtic dragon:

    Okay lets say you are right — Obama is the SAME AS BUSH and SELLING GAYS OUT

    What should we do?

    VOTE REPUBLICAN TO SHOW HIM WHO IS BOSS. THEN WE CAN LIVE WITH REPUBLICAN POLICY – which is apparently better than living under Obama… right?

  267. 267
    Comrade Darkness says:

    @celticdragon: Maybe. I can’t really account for just how furious some of this thread has made me, so you may be onto to something.

    Perhaps you should also consider how many potential allies you have lost. I, for one, will henceforth tune out immediately as soon as it gets shrill rather than dig for a message, because there isn’t one beyond we’re more important than everything, including 40 million people lacking healthcare, damnit. That was lesson 1 learned from this tread. Lesson 2 is the LGBT community only goes on the full on attack when there is a “weak” democratic president in place who is trying to balance all sides to actually make progress. This is all such a replay of Clinton, it is stunning. Lucky for you, Obama probably doesn’t care if you don’t have his back, except to add to the vitriol directed at it. If anyone else were in there, I’d expect them to say fuck it.

  268. 268
    Allan says:

    Elie, can you point to where celticdragon said that?

    Because it would suck if you were just making a strawman to knock down.

  269. 269
    celticdragon says:

    @Ed Marshall:

    The DOJ represents the United States of America in all matters pertaining to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter if the law is bullshit, DOJ has to defend it. If they didn’t it would be something like your defense attorney going to court and telling the judge that his client is guilty.

    I guess I should mention that previous administrations have refused to defend federal laws they did not agree with, but I digress…

    In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – “The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.”), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – “Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court’s Miranda cases.”), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.”) all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

    We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

    Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.

    Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.

    http://www.americablog.com/200.....-doma.html

    The subsequent filing tried to tidy over that little unpleasantness with comparing us to pedophiles and saying that we cost the government precious bodily fluids tax dollars…but we have not forgotten.

    Not by a long shot.

  270. 270
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    but you will certainly hear from others on it if you use it again.

    I’m sure I will, but I refuse to self ban words unless there is a solid case for it being racist, or bigoted, sexist, or whatever. Of course the bloghost can always ban me if he disagrees. And a term meaning something in “some corners” doesn’t cut it for me.

  271. 271
    Keith G says:

    @Ed Marshall: Ed, you raise a significant issue. If what you say is correct, our side has more ass-hats than I imagined. Who in the hell would sacrifice 5 yrs of work on the word of any politician? Very stupid, very fucked up.

    But your tale seems to be a bit askew and lacking.

    There were cases scheduled for the Supreme Court….

    Cases do not get “scheduled” per se. The SCOTUS grants cert in fewer the 1/1000 cases. If you are on a legal team the just got granted cert you would not withdraw if God itself came down and licked your ear.

    What is/was the name of that case? What courts have heard it?

  272. 272
    Allan says:

    @Comrade Darkness: It’s a good thing you read this thread before you mailed that fat check off to the HRC and got the “I love the gays” tattoo.

  273. 273
    celticdragon says:

    @Elie:

    I don’t recall saying he was the same as Bush.

    He may well be selling us out for all that, however. I suppose you would rather we be good, servile little queers and bow and scrape for out social superiors? I will continue to agitate and demand accountability. No apologies.

    btw, if any “ally” is lost because of reading me right here, then they were looking for excuses to begin with.

  274. 274
    celticdragon says:

    @Comrade Darkness:

    This is all such a replay of Clinton, it is stunning.

    Funny you should say that, since it was Clinton who sold us down the river while showing up for black tie soirres at HRC…LOL!

    I really loved how Clinton gave a wink and a nod to Christian Radio stations bragging about how he signed DOMA.

    But that doesn’t hold true for DOMA. Clinton says that he “didn’t like signing DOMA,” but did so to head off “a very reactionary Congress” which, he said, was set to pass a constitutional amendment. But he didn’t address why his 1996 presidential campaign purchased advertising on Christian and right wing radio bragging signing DOMA into law as proof of his “pro-family” credentials.

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/bill-clinton

  275. 275
    Ed Marshall says:

    @Keith G:

    Pietrangelo v. Gates

    There is more to it than coordinating with Obama, but that was absolutely part of it.

  276. 276
    Little Dreamer says:

    I stated several months ago they would have to be patient because we had a new president who was working on a lot of issues, was dealing with economic factors that could completely flush our economic outlook down the toilet if not careful and I stated when he was ready to take on their concerns, he would.

    So here we are some months later (six I think?) and he has finally addressed the situation. He apparently is ready to take up the fight and push to end DADT now.

    DADT proponents have been crybabies all along acting like not getting this situation resolved immediately was a life or death situation, it wasn’t. I wish the gay community luck in getting all they want out of this, but there were far more important things that needed to be addressed first. No amount of screaming was going to push Obama to do this before he was ready to do it.

  277. 277
    Keith G says:

    @Ed Marshall: Thanks

  278. 278
    Corner Stone says:

    @Shade Tail:

    These people are ignoring the clear fact that Obama is in favor of LGBT equality, and pretend that “just words” aren’t worth anything. They’re worth a lot. It is an act of political courage for a major politician to so plainly speak out in favor of LGBT equality; that isn’t exactly an uncontroversial position.

    Yep, “just words”:

    “To be clear,” Sen. Barack Obama. D-Illinois, spox Bill Burton told Talking Points Memo last October about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, “Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

    Reaffirmed Obama’s Senate office in December: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same…Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

    In February Obama voted in favor of the an amendment from Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., to repeal retroactive immunity for telecoms, saying, “I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people – we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law. We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties.”

  279. 279
    henqiguai says:

    @General Winfield Stuck (#269):

    And a term meaning something in “some corners” doesn’t cut it for me.

    General, there’s something on the order of, what, 33 million African-Americans in this country ? That’s the “corner”. Sort’a like “boy”; which is one of the reasons, catchy tune and all that notwithstanding, “The Chatanooga Chu Chu” just ain’t that popular on, say, WBUR (Howard University radio).

    I knew a ton of people who thought “…getting jewed” and ‘heimie” weren’t a problem, either. They too got crossed off my christmas card list. I’m currently working on “gyp’ed”…

  280. 280
    Corner Stone says:

    @matoko_chan:

    ummm….i’m a muslim….what does that mean?

    The infamous “some say” rhetorical device.

  281. 281
    henqiguai says:

    @henqiguai (me at @278):

    WBUR (Howard University radio).

    Okay, it’s late (for me) and I’m tired. It’s not WBUR (that’s Boston University Public Radio affiliate). Howard University’s radio station is WHUR. “H”. Easy mistake, happens all the time, I’m sure it does.

  282. 282
    Comrade Darkness says:

    @henqiguai: I’m currently working on “gyp’ed”…

    You sound like the roommate (not Polish) I had who went full throttle second order offended upon discovering that my “backwards” RPN engineering calculator was called a Reverse Polish Notation calculator.

  283. 283
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    General, there’s something on the order of, what, 33 million African-Americans in this country ?

    So, you’re speaking for the entire population of AA;s in America?

    And it is not sorta like “boy”. I grew up in the south, and have some idea what the dogwhistle words are. I never heard Buckwheat used for racial disparity, though certainly a number of other terms,, with “boy” at the top of the list, or near it.

    And Jewed and Heimie are clearly derogatory terms. Buckwheat was a character in a beloved teevee series for chrissake. But I am always open to being wrong, and will remain alert to my possible wrongness. So I’ve got two “no’s” this thread, and they are the first btw.

  284. 284

    […] a different take, see John Cole here. […]

  285. 285
    Corner Stone says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    DADT proponents have been crybabies all along acting like not getting this situation resolved immediately was a life or death situation, it wasn’t. I wish the gay community luck in getting all they want out of this, but there were far more important things that needed to be addressed first. No amount of screaming was going to push Obama to do this before he was ready to do it.

    Is this really how you want to frame this? Crybabies?

  286. 286
    Keith G says:

    @Ed Marshall: FYI, SCOTUS did not agree to hear Pietrangelo, earlier the Appeal Court of the 1st Circuit had also declined to hear this star-crossed case. Other cases exist, but they will not go anywhere as this is an issue that SCOTUS would want the political system to have a wack at.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01368.html

  287. 287
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    What a relaxing day of blogging. I think now, I’ll saunter down to the bombing range for a little peace and quiet.

  288. 288
    LoveMonkey says:

    When I started my career of crime and infamy here on BJ just shy of 5 years ago, I might have been the most vociferous gay rights activist on the board. Who can forget the month-long flame wars with Darrell and his queer-baiting trolls? Etc?

    But that was then and this is now. Now, I won’t lift a finger for gay rights. I will do one thing and one thing only, and that is vote. I have always and will always vote in favor of full rights for everybody.

    But watching these whiny ass titty babies cry their salty tears the last couple years, and especially this year, as if their goddam rights were anywhere near the most important things in this world or any world, has made me sick to death of them. They can kiss my entire soft, white, straight ass before I will advocate for their rights again.

    Kiss it, and kiss it nicely. Like you mean it.

  289. 289
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Now, now, no need to pout and preen, buckwheat.

    For what very little it is worth, since I don’t get to tell others what things mean to them, I never once thought this was a racial connotation, or demeaning or bad or insulting name calling or etc.
    My dad called me meathead, buckwheat, etc, my whole life and he is the least racial person I know. Even serving in Vietnam (this isn’t relevant except I think it is), he never once spoke ill of Asian people. And he grew up in East Texas from the ’40’s, so there was no doubt he was exposed to a lot of people and thought we would object to now.
    So as much of a punk as Stuck undoubtedly is, I didn’t think twice about it. FWIW.

  290. 290
    Corner Stone says:

    @LoveMonkey:

    But watching these whiny ass titty babies cry their salty tears the last couple years, and especially this year, as if their goddam rights were anywhere near the most important things in this world or any world, has made me sick to death of them. They can kiss my entire soft, white, straight ass before I will advocate for their rights again.

    Easy enough for you to say you little bitch. You’re the most disadvantaged subset group ever.
    I’m sure the GLBT community recoils to think they have offended your fucking class status soft white old ass.

  291. 291
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    So as much of a punk as Stuck undoubtedly is, I didn’t think twice about it. FWIW.

    LOL, How very touching. Thanks meathead!

  292. 292
    TenguPhule says:

    Fair enough…when he actually starts acting like an ally.

    The circular firing squad will continue until morale improves.

    The LGBT screechers here are doing their cause no favors.

    While a majority of Americans are sympathic to the cause, they have no stake in it and aren’t going to give a shit if you bitch and moan when they’ve got things more likely to impact them personally to worry about and which you seem intent on clusterfucking because you’re getting what you want right away.

  293. 293
    Msburningbst says:

    I despise homosexuals. That said, I feel DADT should be repealed. Might as well send out the people I don’t like to kill / get killed.

  294. 294
    TenguPhule says:

    because you’re *not* getting what you want right away.

    fixed.

  295. 295
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Wow, what drug trip argument are you having, and who are you having it with, compadre?

    Kiss my ass, and gently, and with feeling. All of it, even the crack.

  296. 296

    […] John Cole, just so you know, plenty of us in the LGBT community agree with you. […]

  297. 297
    Keith G says:

    @LoveMonkey: Ahhh….Don’t leave me this way, I can’t surivive…..

    Pls bare in mind that we are not all elitist fops and us working class queers sometimes need the love and the ocassional phone call to a local pol.

    Cheers.

  298. 298
    gwangung says:

    Is anyone getting a Prop 8-vibe here?

  299. 299
    kwAwk says:

    I used to think the most annoying people to argue with were Clinton supporters during the primary last year.

    Yeah. Cuz it wasn’t like we were telling you the truth or anything…..

    …..cuz, ya know, you Obama supporters really showed us. He’s just been a fountain of accomplishment so far in his Presidency.

    I’m sorry, I forgot, its President Snowe not President Obama.

  300. 300
    TenguPhule says:

    It sure would be a lot easier to support gay rights if you gays weren’t such fags. acting like assholes

    Fixed.

    I don’t recall civil rights succeeding because Black Activists called for Whitey to be capped.

  301. 301
    TenguPhule says:

    Cuz it wasn’t like we were telling you the truth or anything

    You weren’t.

    You still aren’t.

  302. 302
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Corner Stone, I’ll tell you what, I’m a female, that means I’ve been a second class citizen all my life, why don’t you push for absolute equality for women first? Equal pay would be a great start. Equal numbers of women in top echelons of business would be another.

    DADT has been in affect for less than a third of my life, and I’ve been a second class citizen ALL of my life, do you hear me bitching and moaning about it? No, you don’t.

  303. 303
    Corner Stone says:

    @LoveMonkey: I thought it was pretty clear but I guess you’ve been cheeking your meds recently.
    IOW, it’s easy for you to be “tired” of hearing from a category of peoples who have been denied their essential equal rights. And further, I am sure they are most displeased that you are in fact unhappy to hear from them now.
    Please alert the GLBT community as to when it is an appropriate time for them to strenuously push for their rights.
    Don’t worry, they’ll wait.

  304. 304
    Steve T. says:

    Mnemonsyne:

    The No on 8 folks screwed themselves, and then they thrashed around trying to find someone else to blame. Not only will I never give them another dime, I want my money back from the first time I donated since they basically flushed it down the toilet with the world’s weakest ad campaign.

    No kidding. I donated to them much more than I could afford. They’ll get a very cold, hard stare from me if they come back for more.

  305. 305
    LoveMonkey says:

    Jesus, guys, your blog is THE most fucked up site on the intertubes, still, after all this time. Eaten posts, crashes, and that’s on top of the whiny gays who won’t kiss my entire silky smooth ass and all the other outrages we have to put up with around here.

  306. 306
    Corner Stone says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Corner Stone, I’ll tell you what, I’m a female, that means I’ve been a second class citizen all my life, why don’t you push for absolute equality for women first? Equal pay would be a great start. Equal numbers of women in top echelons of business would be another.

    And I have been, at least as long as I’ve been politically conscious. I’ve marched/protested/donated to further that cause as well.
    To me, this isn’t about the GLBT community (except in that it is), it’s about equal rights. The one thing that should be understood about my advocation (if that’s a word?) is that I am 100% for:
    Equal rights for all, equal justice under the law.
    Period.

  307. 307
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Alert them? See this perfectly shaped, white silken ass? That’s my alert, pal. Kiss it, and put some feeling into it.

  308. 308
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Corner Stone:

    You forgot apple pie, Mom, and the flag, dude. Come on, if you are going to go for bromides, at least put some effort into them.

  309. 309
    kwAwk says:

    TenguPhule — Yeah well, please do clue the rest of us in on that massive list of things Obama’s done. Surely he’s fufilled at least 3 of his campaign promises by now.

  310. 310
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Gee, if you’d never become politically aware, you would have never had second class citizenship staring you in the face. I’ve had it foisted upon me from before I could read. Every female does. No, sorry, your argument is stupid in that respect. You still will earn much more than I will simply for having one of those penis things instead of one of these vaginas.

  311. 311
    Little Dreamer says:

    Corner Stone, I answered you, but my comment is in moderation, so, I’m sorry but, you’ll have to wait – haha, fitting for this thread.

  312. 312
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Sure, just name ONE THING this thread has accomplished so far. ONE THING.

    Heh.

  313. 313
    J in WA says:

    Holy wow.

    This is why I could never be a democrat: you’re all on the same side with the same goals and same ideology, and all you do is attack each other. And it’s not like this is a one-off sitch, this is how you people operate on a daily basis.

    Gays: everyone here is on your side. Chillout on the hateful comments. Continue making yourselves heard.

    Straights: seriously? Jeebus, when your spouse or SO gets a little irrational, do you immediately berate him or her, or do you just ride it out knowing that they need to vent? For fuck’s sake, the gays have had a pretty hard goddamn time of it. I think Obama is going to do the right thing, and when he does they’ll give him proper kudos. Until then, just let the frustrated folk rant, eh?

    Holy fuck I can’t believe all this shit.

  314. 314
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Facts will get you nowwhere when arguing with these Republicans. Er, religious nuts. I mean, wingers. That is, uh, the….. well ….. you know.

  315. 315
    kwAwk says:

    Sorry J. John Cole was seriously traumatized by the last election and can’t seem to let go of his disdain for Clinton supporters, even though Hillary has been working pretty damn hard in the Obama administration to make it a success.

  316. 316
    Little Dreamer says:

    @J in WA:

    Apparently you weren’t here when this argument started several months ago and the gays were bashing our new president who was planning to address DADT at a point in time when he was ready. They verbally attacked the president for being dishonest, and now Obama has proven them wrong. He does mean to address it, he just couldn’t do it on their timeline. He had to address a gazillion Bush fuck-ups first.

  317. 317
    LoveMonkey says:

    @J in WA:

    You are right, you could never be a democrat. Democrats are about real life. The world you imagine only exists in the dreams of your early childhood.

  318. 318
    J in WA says:

    @LittleDreamer

    Naw, I was here. I just take those things with a grain of salt. I get their frustration, and I also realize that they’re going to be happy when he does the job and that due to the nature of the beast, they’re going to complain until then. What’s really wrong with that? Let them bitch. Reason with them if you can. Stop with the divisive rhetoric.

    @LoveMonkey
    That’s a pretty sweet quote: “Democrats are about real life.” I’ll save that for the next time a dem sells him- or herself out to a powerful lobby and then offer it right back to you.

  319. 319
    Keith G says:

    Cornerstone, what part of Houston?

  320. 320
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    TenguPhule— Yeah well, please do clue the rest of us in on that massive list of things Obama’s done.

    Passed the stimulus bill that kept the economy from cratering.
    On the way to closing Gitmo.
    Will have us out of Iraq by 2011.
    Signed the Ledbetter Act.

    There’s others you might’ve missed on the GOP’s Bullshit Talking Points For Our PUMA Plants mailing list. Try Google sometime.

  321. 321
    celticdragon says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    He does mean to address it, he just couldn’t do it on their timelinelifetime.

    There we go.

    In all seriousness, I expect another 10 years before we see anybody actually willing to go the mile on this. I know about political difficulties, but don’t ecpect me to clap louder when you share the stage with Rick Warren and have your DOJ write shit that likens us to pedophiles.

    On taking office, Obama immediately announced that he was doing away with the Clinton-era concept of special assistants who served as liaisons to various communities like gays and Latinos. He then went ahead and appointed special liaisons to some of those communities anyway, but never to the gays. Around the same time, the White House Web site, once detailing half a page of presidential promises to the gay community, overnight saw those pledges shortened to three simple sentences. Gone were five of the eight previous commitments, including the promises to repeal both Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA. Adding to a growing sense of angst, senior White House officials kept telling the media that they weren’t sure when, if ever, the president would follow through on his promises to the gay community. Then there were the Cabinet appointees. Three Latino nominees but nary a gay in sight. And finally, last week our president had his Department of Justice file a brief in defense of DOMA, a law he had once called “abhorrent.” In that brief, filed on the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (which outlawed bans on interracial marriage), our own interracial Harvey Milk, not lacking a sense of historical irony, compared our love to incest and pedophilia.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/f.....ay_rights/

  322. 322
    celticdragon says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Got the moderation thing too.

  323. 323
    Cerberus says:

    Ooch, my comments going to be a bit lost here. I would agree with your statements and though I may have sounded harsh earlier, I believe Obama is doing far more for gay rights than any president and that our leaders have fallen down on the job in using his words of support as well as our opponents have used his words of ambivalence. That is our leaders’ fault, not Obama’s.

    But on the further point of it not being the same place it was 9 months ago. That’s kind of why the gay community is mobilized, fierce, and demanding some pay.

    With Prop 8, something broke in the fundamental line and gay people suddenly realized that we’re really close to a turning point where it is no longer a political winner to bash the gays and people are starting to realize that openly hating gays is just as “no” as openly hating blacks. There’s a shift in the I would say aura of the debate which can be seen in how the mormon front groups are being investigated and the anti-gay big dogs aren’t getting as much highlight as they were under Bush.

    Obama’s election is part of it as is the new “take no prisoners” attitude of the gay grassroots. Sadly, this has lead to the casualty of the grassroots ranting at Obama to do more, but it’s a side-effect of the larger transformation. Gay groups are no longer playing defense and are starting to play hardball. One of the good things I believe is that Obama likes it when we yell at him, because then he’s “under fire from the hippies” and can look moderate, even-headed in the face of tremendous pressure.

    Also look to him getting grilled slightly less when inclusive ENDA (the Matthew Shepherd amendment) passes soon. See him also make a big deal about signing that into law.

  324. 324
    Cerberus says:

    Also, shock of shocks, there are white gay men who are racist and the differences in momentum seen on the ground and acted upon in Washington is allowing them to let their “I needed an excuse to hate the n-” flag fly.

    Not nearly all the criticism, but let’s just say there’s a certain segment of our community that didn’t stop believing the “black people voted prop 8 in” myth even after it was disproved because it gave them an excuse.

    It might also be why dem strategists might be promoting slowing things down. That block is also likely to jump ship to libertarian land as soon as we’re not the whipping boy of the GOP. And that segment also tends to be the bigger donors of the gay community.

  325. 325
    Ben Richards says:

    Is this the football thread?

  326. 326
    Corner Stone says:

    @LoveMonkey: Well, it does shine like a beacon. Damn! Are you using it to make a point, or are you using it to alert people to the newest strip club that’s open in town?
    You could blind people with that 112 year old ass that’s never seen the light of day! Put that crinkly shar pei motherfucker back in your footie pajamas.

  327. 327
  328. 328
    Corner Stone says:

    @Little Dreamer: You’re going to hold my penis against me??
    Duh-dun-da! Thanks, I’ll be here all week!

    Seriously, not sure what you expect anyone to say here? I’m about 50/50 now between pre-awareness penis-osity and post-penis-osity.
    It’s bullshit for you to bring that nonsense. What else was I supposed to do, not be a boy? Bullshit.
    You think I expect others to accept less pay for equal work? Bullshit.

  329. 329
    celticdragon says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Speaking of pajamas, NBC is reporting that an un-named White House official just insulted GLBT activists and bloggers, saying:

    Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.

    Harwood then went on to say:

    For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

    http://www.americablog.com/200.....icial.html

    Americablog is furious, to say the least.

    I’m not surprised, since I figure that Rahm Emanuel wants to reprise the famous “Sista Soulja” moment, and we are the target.

    The next time the DNC calls me for funds, somebody is getting an earfull…

  330. 330
    Corner Stone says:

    @Keith G: I work in downtown Houston. Live in CD TX-22.

  331. 331
    Corner Stone says:

    @celticdragon: Yep. Couldn’t find a transcript at the time but caught just enough of the interview to get the flavor. As I said earlier:
    “John Harwood on NBC right now – (paraphrase) FUCK YOU GLBT COMMUNITY!
    as quoted from WH sources.”

    Pam’s House Blend is also not happy, as I refuse to go to Aravosis’ site:
    Yep, just words

  332. 332
    Corner Stone says:

    @celticdragon: Hmmm, lost a post here. But, yeah. Saw that.

  333. 333
    Corner Stone says:

    @celticdragon:

    one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

    Hey! Listen you little whiny bitches! Governing is HARD! STFU and donate already!

  334. 334
    Lisa says:

    Somehow, I find this Obama pile on to be similar to the guy who comes home after a really hard day (or long hard 8 years) with his asshole boss and beats the shit out of his very loving and supportive wife because she didn’t get his dinner on the table fast enough – because that means she doesn’t fucking care about him, the bitch.

  335. 335
    matoko_chan says:

    Things Obama has done
    Kicked the bioluddites off the bioethics council.
    Made hESCR legal and fundable.
    Bitchslapped Israel and the PA with Goldstone by leaking the memo.
    Refused to let the miltary bully him into throwning more american bodies into the Graveyard of Empires without some careful analysis of the situ.
    Won the Peace Nobel.
    Changed the world.
    ;)

  336. 336
    Keith G says:

    @Corner Stone: just wonderin if you’ve been paying attention to the mayoral race.

  337. 337
    Corner Stone says:

    @LoveMonkey: You’re calling me a Republican? Man you really need to stop pawning off your meds. Just take what the good PA’s are giving you and go back to your shuffleboard games oldtimer.

  338. 338
    Corner Stone says:

    @Keith G: Can’t vote in it but am paying attention.

  339. 339

    Gay internet-based activists should not confuse themselves with the much larger body of gay Americans.

    Nor should anyone else.

  340. 340
    Lisa says:

    Okay it was really shitty that he shared the stage with some religious fucktwat on inaug day. I hate that. It disappoints me deeply.

    But attacking him for supporting you because you are still burning hot with resentment over that helps you how?

  341. 341
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @matoko_chan:

    And these are but a few of my favorite things.

  342. 342
    auntieeminaz says:

    @Lisa: Oh, snap. You are so right!

  343. 343
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Lisa:

    Especially since, as I said above, Prop 8 didn’t win because of Rick Warren. It won because the No on 8 campaign was probably one of the worst in California history, bar none. But it’s easier to blame Warren and Obama for the loss than admit that the No on 8 people fucked it up and went from being up by 20 points to losing the election.

  344. 344
  345. 345
    Comrade Darkness says:

    @celticdragon: Clinton who sold us down the river

    I agree with another poster above who intimated something similar. You clearly would be much happier with pure martyrdom under Bush III. Some progress on policy and significant progress on public discourse == ZOMG theyz stabbid us in the back ! 111 !

    @Lisa: I took that as a signal that he wasn’t going to be anyone’s puppet. I assumed there was no pick that wouldn’t PO someone. And on that note, is there a 1-800 number I can call to preclear everything I do, because I’m not hip enough to avoid insult on this and man I’d hate to be on the receiving end of this.

  346. 346
    Lisa says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yes. And that is the unkindest cut of all.

  347. 347
    Lisa says:

    This shit is so depressing. Ugh.

    I am not disputing the need to keep pressure on the president. But it is the WAY we are doing it.

    “Mr. President, we hear what you are saying. But we are not going to rest or relent in our pressure on you and congress until your very noble words are put into action.”

    Vs.

    “You are worse than Bushitler!!!1! Fucker stupid poopie fucker dummyhead! I want an Oompa Loompa nowwwwwwww!”

    Sigh.

  348. 348
    celticdragon says:

    @Comrade Darkness:

    I agree with another poster above who intimated something similar. You clearly would be much happier with pure martyrdom under Bush III. Some progress on policy and significant progress on public discourse == ZOMG theyz stabbid us in the back ! 111 !

    I would clearly be happier with a Democratic President who kept his damned campaign promises that he used to get our donations with…you know, the ones he used to have up on the White house site before they all got taken down in February.

    Oh, I know…his plate is full.

    Sorry. My checkbook is empty. The ATM is run dry.

  349. 349
    celticdragon says:

    Saturday night President Obama charmingly delivered a rather bleak message to the gay community on the eve of its latest march on Washington. In a speech to the world’s largest gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, Obama essentially said two things: I’m with you. But I can’t do much for you.

    Obama patted himself on the back for his party’s passage earlier in the week of a a hate-crimes bill that, for the first time, includes gay and transgender people. And he used the opportunity to tell gay critics who have expected so much of him to express what he expects of them. The hate-crimes bill, he said, had become law only because those who believed in it had thoroughly educated the public about why it was important. “Countless activists and organizers never gave up,” he said. “You held vigils. You spoke out year after year, Congress after Congress.”

    Obama is right, in a civics-class sort of way, because social change can’t occur if it’s forced from the top-down. But that’s also a convenient argument for him, since it defers responsibility from his office.

    http://www.time.com/time/natio.....87,00.html

    I think we already figured this out.

    Delays. Excuses.

    “You need to wait for another generation. By the way, the DNC needs some money. You know we love you even if we can’t ever get around to your civil rights issues…”

  350. 350
    Cassidy says:

    @Terri: Eh. I support most Progressive causes. But like I said earlier, this isn’t about what I personally think. I’m pragmatic. I don’t waste time with making the emotionally right and appealling argument, if I know it doesn’t work. I ultimately believe the results are more important than the principles. While it may feel good to tell people that (insert Progress Cause) is the right thing to do, it doesn’t get results as often as it should.

    @scott: Well. I can see the viewpoint. I can’t speak for Marines, but Army culture dictates a couple of different principles, even when they are wrong at times, the foremost being that all NCO’s are trustworthy and infallible. Simply put, if my CDR were to tell me that one of my Soldier’s was beiing investigated for teh gay, and I defended him, then that’s where it would stop. I’m not trying to say that the army is blissfully pro-gay, or that there isn’t a problem, but I am saying that there is an awful misconception that all it takes is someone saying “I saw such and such….” and that’s the end of it. That isn’t the case. And, as you move up, you are insulated by your rank from certain things, unfounded accusations being one of them. In every unit I’ve been in, the CDR’s faith and trust in their CSM was so high, that short off walking in on CSM playing hide the pickle with the local drag queen, they’d tell the accuser to go fuck themselves. Secondly, I’ve spent my career in Combat Arms and MEDDAC. I’ve rarely met gays in Combat Arms. I don’t know why and I don’t speculate. Maybe there is a genetic link for homosexuality and intelligence, cuz I’ve yet to meet a gay person who was a prime candidate for Field Artillery (or dumb as dirt). In MEDDAC, I’ve met several, and once again, it was an open secret.

  351. 351
    Tattoosydney says:

    @mcc:

    Bravo.

  352. 352
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I got your shuffleboard game right here, KidneyStone!

    So, who needs a beer?

  353. 353
    Little Dreamer says:

    If Obama didn’t mean to change DADT why would he be bringing it up now?

    He is working on it. Give him some space and time to do that. If it’s not done by the time he leaves office (you got three years and three months unless he is re-elected) then you can bitch, moan and complain all you want.

    There is no reason for him to open up discussion on this topic now when the complaints had died down unless he means to do something about it. But, go ahead, get your hankies out and start crying and blaming. This would happen anyway, even if he gets rid of that stupid DADT provision.

  354. 354
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    It’s bullshit for you to bring that nonsense. What else was I supposed to do, not be a boy? Bullshit.
    You think I expect others to accept less pay for equal work? Bullshit.

    Yeah, I forgot, second class citizens are only important when they are gay and have been dealing with DADT for the last decade. I don’t see you taking up the cause for a group that has been forced to live as subhumans for centuries, much more than a decade. You only care about gays and DADT because apparently it involves a cause you are attached to, involved with and affected by. Had you been born female, you’d know what second class citizenship was all your life, and you would realize how hard it is to fix. Be thankful, you have a president who is willing to stand behind a microphone and state that he is willing to get behind and support your cause. We women will always be second class, and there is no way that anyone will stop that from happening.

    Go cry a river somewhere else, you sound like a weak infant.

  355. 355
    Little Dreamer says:

    By the way Corner Stone, if anyone were to wear footie pajamas in our household it certainly wouldn’t be TZ (Love Monkey), it would be me (I like to be warm and cozy) and he’d have them off of me in about ten seconds flat.

    You really do underestimate him.

  356. 356
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Wait a minute, what about my pink Bunny Jammies?

    I thought you said they made me look sexy.

  357. 357
    Little Dreamer says:

    @LoveMonkey:

    Those are mine sweetheart, but you can borrow them if you like. ;)

  358. 358
    Allan says:

    Reading the screeching sanctimony of Little Dreamer makes me long for the soothing tones of a Yoko Ono record.

  359. 359
    ken adler says:

    I don’t see you taking up the cause for a group that has been forced to live as subhumans for centuries,

    I’m sorry, but we are taking up the cause of people who have been forced to live as subhumans for millenia.

    Ken

  360. 360

    This mess seems to have died an uneasy death but I’ll make this point, whatever else may go on this is a political process and it will follow that path and it won’t be damn quick and it will be messy. The Big Cheeze is on the LGBT’s side and was so in front of a national audience. Think not, just a dinner? Then how the fuck is it you know about it if you weren’t there?

    Obama can’t just make this happen all by his little ole self, he needs public support and he needs public pressure on Congress – unless stopgaps will satisfy you, and it wouldn’t me. (and no, I’m straight) The LGBT is the largest Caucus in DPO (Oregon) and I’m Chair of the second largest, GOC (Gun Owners Caucus). I am a very public ally of the LGBT and in the OR02 CD Primary I made a cornerstone of my campaign the importance of all our Civil Liberties and the same responsibilities and privileges for all our law abiding citizens.

    Stomping on an ally and ignoring the real threat or opportunity is childish and doomed to failure. It may make you feel good to kick the POTUS but he’s not the problem. You have a House and Senate to influence and suggesting that your friendship with the WH is contingent on the WH making this happen lets them off the hook and at the same time diminishes the POTUS perceived influence. This is poor policy.

    I watched the NO on 8 fail from Oregon and watched one of the most abysmal campaigns I’d seen in a long time. I’m hearing echoes of it in this thread. Because something is Right or Just does not make it politically successful or even viable, it takes more than that and stomping your feet and throwing rocks at the handiest target won’t make it less Unfair. A great big swath of this country doesn’t think it is Unfair, Unjust, or Wrong – they flat out despise ‘teh gay’ and Obama and whatever ammunition they can get will be used in whatever nasty way they can and if you’d like to help them do it, well good luck trying to find another ally like Obama.

    He put a shit load on the line in front of a lot of people that voted for him that really don’t give a damn about the LGBT but do care a whole bunch about their jobs and some less about health care. It isn’t that they actively oppose the LGBT, they just don’t care much. These are political realities that the Congress will deal with and they’re taking their sweet time fucking up health care if that gives you a clue. The political reality is that the uninsured and underinsured aren’t a big enough piece of the pie and gays think they are? That was a ballsy speech and it was a signal to Congress that he takes it seriously. A very clear signal, Presidents don’t do that otherwise. There are no cheap words at that level, despite the whiner’s conception of it.

    Aw, fuck it – I know perfectly well I’ve wasted a bunch of words that won’t suit the throw a fit crowd. If you want something you have to go after the people who are holding it up and support the allies that can help and that is Congress. The President may be the most powerful man on earth but that doesn’t make him the Decider in this type of issue and frankly I’m not on the side of dictatorship even if it looks to be on my side. I want Law the Supremes will protect not bullshit half measures. As Chair of the GOC I’m here to assure you that even that won’t keep half asses from trying to get around it, and my Caucus has an original BOR that gets whacked (and by plenty right here).

    You tell your allies that they are inadequate and don’t understand at your own risk and you forget that they have things to lose in this fight as well. You forget that one doesn’t have to be LGBT to know what it is to be fucked with legally. Actually, you forget a lot and that’s too bad.

    @celticdragon:

    Honestly, if you were here in person one of us would be in the hospital and the other one in jail. Maybe it’s best we just ignore each other.

    Considering this, maybe you ought to forego carrying since you seem to think words are the basis for taking illegal actions. If you don’t get that, you need to take a real close look at your thinking because you’re fucking up real bad. Don’t even think of that as coming from a pacifist, I’m not even close.

  361. 361
    henqiguai says:

    @Comrade Darkness (#286):

    You sound like the roommate (not Polish) I had who went full throttle second order offended upon discovering that my “backwards” RPN engineering calculator was called a Reverse Polish Notation calculator.

    Funny, I ran into the same outrage when I loaned a calculator to someone, and warned them, too, that the thing was RPN rather than the algebraic he was expecting. But the “…working on ‘gyp’ed'” is a personal thing. I don’t like the off-hand racial/ethnic verbal slaps so casually tossed around when I hear them, so I work on purging them from my own lexicon when I learn of them. I recall a high school gym teacher warning about not wanting to hear any “wops!” for whoops when the inevitable falls off the trampoline occurred; was my first encounter with the concern and I remember.

    But if you’ve never been the target of such usage, especially if the terms and usage were intentionally used as a slap and warning, I guess you can be casual about them. Me, I still strongly recall Jim Crow, as well as the (stupidity inspired) hatred and violence against gays even in my own neighborhood when growing up. I don’t like it one bit.

  362. 362
    Lisa says:

    What Little Dreamer said.

    Not screeching sanctimony at all, Allan. She speaks the truth. Thanks for the sexism though. Because you know, because women always screech when addressing an issue. Nevermind the screeching sanctimony of a crapload of boys for 350+ posts.

    Fucker.

  363. 363
    celticdragon says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    If you don’t get that, you need to take a real close look at your thinking because you’re fucking up real bad.

    I think I’m capable of making my own judgments without your input.

    What I had in mind wrt “JSF” was the back of my hand across his face. I didn’t bring guns into the issue, nor would I. I don’t consider shooting at people for being insulting asses. Do you?

  364. 364
    Allan says:

    Hey Lisa, is there room up there on the cross, or are only girls allowed?

    You want the gold medal in the Oppression Olympics? Be my guest.

  365. 365
    Allan says:

    @Chuck Butcher: Ken, you make some good arguments. It’s too bad that you fall for all the same rhetorical failings as the other heterosexual commenters on this issue.

    Strawmen: you describe a pack of hysterical screamers as if they were A) prevalent and B) alone in the gay community. You ignore the wide variety of voices speaking out on LGBT issues who don’t come close to the caricature that you, and John, describe. I’m sure you don’t read them, but they are out there. Just because a few names who are known to the MSM get airtime doesn’t mean they arrived where they are by acclamation within our community.

    Binary thinking: you act as though all anyone in the LGBT community is doing is criticizing the President and say we should be focusing on Congress instead. We can, and do, multi-task. My Congressman’s office is very familiar with me and I keep calling and writing even though he is Dan Lungren and a tool. I gave money to Steve Cohen in TN last year when he came under primary challenge and took a lot of homophobic smears because he’s a staunch LGBT ally.

    Strategy: you rightly note that the No on 8 campaign was terrible. You’re not alone in that observation. But elsewhere in this thread, one Cassidy opined that framing gay rights as civil rights was a losing strategy and we should strive to take “the gay” out of our arguments for equality. Ironically, this is exactly why and how the No on 8 campaign sucked and failed. We got commercials with middle-aged straight couples talking vaguely about how they want all their children to have the chance to get married, even the gay one. Or one with a female bride encountering all kinds of obstacles as she attempted to walk down the aisle for her wedding, and wouldn’t it suck if this happened to you? Weak tea, but they claim it focus-group tested well. I guess they didn’t try focus-grouping it immediately after watching a rant about how homos were going to buttsex your children in schools to see how it worked in a competitive environment.

    Anyway, thanks for trying. Too bad you had to go and pick out one of the gays you especially disliked and publicly bash him as your finale. You guys remind me of the Onion story about “Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?”

    Only in your case, it’s “Why do all these gays force me to smash them in the head with rocks?”

  366. 366
    zoe kentucky in pittsburgh says:

    Gay internet-based activists should not confuse themselves with the much larger body of gay Americans.

    Nor should anyone else.

    As one of those LGBT activists, I hope that our straight allies do not take the grumblings and poor strategy ideas of a few loud activists and assume that we all feel the same way. We don’t. We’re not all impatient, angry children. Some of us are perfectly happy with Obama and not feeling neglected whatsoever. Some of us are driven quite crazy by the others who are so quick to attack our allies.

    I for one would have been upset if Obama had tried to deliver on DADT before now– pass health care reform first, there are other issues that can wait.

  367. 367
    Lisa says:

    Allan: Cute. Still sexist though.

  368. 368
    Allan says:

    Lisa, how can you expect me to support your cause when you attack me like that?

    Sadly, your brutal rhetoric forces me to endorse the perpetual enslavement and subjugation of the female. I really wanted to be on your side, but all this hate speech is just more than I can bear.

  369. 369
    Corner Stone says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Yeah, I forgot, second class citizens are only important when they are gay and have been dealing with DADT for the last decade. I don’t see you taking up the cause for a group that has been forced to live as subhumans for centuries, much more than a decade. You only care about gays and DADT because apparently it involves a cause you are attached to, involved with and affected by.

    You got me. I only care about equal rights for one certain set of peoples. But I’m curious how you figured me out.
    I guess it was because I forgot the immutable law that if you speak out and challenge for one thing you are prohibited from being for another thing that’s related but not exact.
    I could continue with the snark but why waste the time on you since you don’t have a damn clue anyway? I like my snark too much to waste it.
    Not that it proves anything one way or the other but I am proud to tell you I was a Clinton supporter during the primaries. I voted for her, took my then 4 yr old son with me to caucus for her in TX, and discussed with him a lot of why we were doing what we were doing.
    I also have taken him with me to do the ACS 5K (Making Strides Against Cancer) last year, and the Susan G. Komen 5K this year. That also proves nothing.
    I could go on listing the ways I have supported different peoples and causes but really, why bother? For some unfathomable reason you have decided I am incapable of agitating for equal rights for all, and only have the capacity to argue for “a cause you are attached to, involved with and affected by”.
    Not that it matters in the slightest because I find it irrelevant to my belief in equal rights for all, but I’m a hetero male, with no family members currently serving in the military. DADT, and the other associated changes I advocate for regarding equal rights for GLBT individuals is just that to me – equal rights.
    I don’t need a personal dog in the hunt to know what’s right. I know what I believe to be right and I fight for it in the ways that I can. And whether you choose to believe me or not, that does include equal rights for all.

  370. 370
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan:

    forces me to endorse the perpetual enslavement and subjugation of the female.

    Hey! Back off! That’s *my* job!

    What am I thinking? We’re both males, we can subjugate together!

  371. 371
    Corner Stone says:

    @Little Dreamer: Nightmares. You’ve given me nightmares I tells ya.
    …*shudders*…

  372. 372
    grumpy realist says:

    There are a lot of people on this thread who could probably use the course in Legislative Procedure I’m now taking….

    I’d like to point out that the *only* reason we got sex discrimination thrown into the Civil Rights Act was as an attempt by the other side to kill the bill completely.

    And there’s a lot of suspicion that the bill wouldn’t have been passed at all except for the fact that Kennedy had been assassinated.

    In a nutshell, it takes a long time to drag Congress in one direction or another. And yeah, they’re the ones who actually make law, not the President. What Obama has been saying is “look, I’m pushing this on my end, but you’re going to have to get the other end of the train in action.” Contact your congresscritter. Yell at Reid. Form a lobby group. If you think that the DNC is a bloody waste of time to donate to because of their position on gay rights, tell them that and spend your money elsewhere. Find an up-and-coming political candidate who really pushes gay rights and support him. But getting into a snit-fit because Obama isn’t moving as fast as you want him to isn’t going to help matters. You’ve got to get the momentum really going on the other end, in Congress.

  373. 373
    Allan says:

    You may be right, grumpy. A course for them might be good.

    Or they could have spent their entire adult lives already doing all the things you listed and so much more.

    They could be critical of the President on LGBT issues, as I have been, and still be actively involved in supporting his agenda for change.

    They might be phone banking this very week on behalf of healthcare reform. They might even be the local organizer who runs phone banks and trains new volunteers how to make calls, and conducts voter registration drives to shift their district to a Democratic plurality in one of next year’s most-watched Congressional districts.

    And they might be lamenting how many of their straight neighbors and allies who were eager to lend a hand during the election season to support Obama are mostly now taking a break from activism. And how hard it is to get people to get off their duffs and come out and do the work needed to deliver what they said they wanted by voting for Obama in the first place.

    And reflecting on the tireless energy of the gay man who’s coordinating voter registration for the county Dems, and the people who are training door-to-door canvassers for marriage equality to be prepared for the next ballot battle.

    And they might take all that real-life experience and teach you a class or two themselves.

  374. 374
    Catsy says:

    Missing the point.

    Most of you going on about how much this affects your daily lives, your children, your spouse, the person you wish could legally be your spouse, and everyone and everything else that it means to be gay in this country are missing the point of John’s post by a mile, despite many people reiterating the points in different ways.

    You’re entitled to feel however you like. Nobody’s saying you don’t have every good reason to feel like you’ve been told to sit in the back of the bus for another four years. It may be cathartic to express those feelings loudly, and you may be under the impression that doing so is helpful.

    The problem is that it’s not. Marches do not persuade the congresscritters who actually need persuading. Raising the visibility of your cause doesn’t help if you raise the visibility of your noisiest and most off-putting fringe elements at the same time. And enslaving yourself to the news cycle by publicly freaking out at every tea leaf that suggests Obama is insufficiently committed to your cause only harms it–by reinforcing right-wing frames and requiring his administration to expend effort and political capital responding instead of working through their list of priorities.

    So yeah, I’m with John–if I were gay and had to deal with a fraction of what most gay men and women do in America, I’d probably be pretty close to blowing shit up as well, and I’d sure as hell be shrill on the Internet. But I’m also keenly aware that this would be an emotional reaction that would ultimately be counterproductive. Being able to understand an action is not the same thing as thinking that it’s a smart idea. Sometimes it takes a third party to get that across.

  375. 375
    Yman says:

    “So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don’t you do something constructive?”

    Wow, ……

    ….. impressive grammatical knowledge for an eight-year-old.

  376. 376
    John Cole says:

    @Yman: Go back to Talk Left. More of us would argue with you over there, but Armando banned us all.

  377. 377
    Yman says:

    Hate to break the news to you, but Obama was not the “first president in your lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights”, unless you really are eight-years-old.

    Yes, DADT was a flawed compromise, but at least Clinton tried to get the military ban repealed, and at a time when the Joint Chiefs, military, Congress and the public were opposed to it. He paid a heavy price in political terms, but he was clearly “openly advocating for gay rights”. Obama, OTOH, has the perfect political storm to push a full repeal (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Congress, public opinion/support), and he’s still hiding behind Congress’s skirts ……. just like with HCR.

    “Hope” for some”Change”!*

    (*eventually …….. maybe. Unless we need more people under this bus)

    BTW – Good to know you keep up with the reality-based blogs.

  378. 378
    Yman says:

    Hey John …. almost forgot! I meant to ask you, ….

    …..
    you progressive bloggers that the Obama administration now refers to as the “internet left fringe”
    , …..

    …. do you all really wear pajamas?

  379. 379

    […] Big Blog boys in their “Hulk” pajamas, will weep tonight. The Big Blog pajama boys will moan into […]

  380. 380

    @celticdragon:

    What I had in mind wrt “JSF” was the back of my hand across his face.

    You’re an ass, that is illegal and such a thing would escalate, if you did such a thing to me, strike me, you’d either have to kill me or wind up in the fucking hospital. Make no mistake, if you struck me I’d hurt you until you had no capacity to hurt me further, so what’s your response since you’re armed?

    Words are just that, words – physical attack is something completely different and you don’t seem to be able to see it. I give a fuck if you think you need my input, you’re an idiot and you’re an armed idiot. You seem to think this is some tough guy stance you’re taking, the problem is that there are some actual tough guys around.

    In regard to your sexual orientation, you’d be pretty safe concerning what words I might use since I don’t give a good goddam, but I’d tell you this to your face because it is dangerous behavior, for your and others.

  381. 381

    @Allan:

    It’s too bad that you fall for all the same rhetorical failings as the other heterosexual commenters on this issue.

    I described behavior not a group. Speaking of strawmen, where exactly did I mention civil liberties as a losing argument?

    I specifically addressed that to CelticDragon, your problem is what? You him? You that dangerously stupid? If not what is it about my comment to him that bothers you?

    I’d like success in this arena and I’d like it sooner than later, I proposed a course I think would assist that. I did so on the basis of my best knowlege and experience. I’ve gotten things done that people said couldn’t be done with radioactive issues and that are spreading through states so I have some clue.

    Who the hell is Ken? I post under my own name and linked and that sure the hell isn’t me. I have no wall between me and the internet, you get exactly what I have to give. I am easy to find either through email or personally. That is how I am.

  382. 382
    beergoggles says:

    One of the reasons Obama gets such a bad rap among the gay activists is his refusal to involve himself in the state constitutional marriage ban votes. Everything else Obama does in terms of gay rights is viewed from this spectrum.

    Even in Cali during Prop 8, Obama came out against it, but the pro-Prop8 group kept running ads with Obama saying what a marriage should be. In addition, Obama hasn’t made any effort to spend any capital supporting the civil rights side in Washington or Maine which basically convinces gays that Obama is Clinton (Bill) and will screw them over.

  383. 383
    gwangung says:

    @beergoggles: Hmmm. I struggle with accepting that kind of argument, because a piecemeal approach like that isn’t useful on the national level, which the President is better suited for.

  384. 384
    Allan says:

    @Chuck Butcher: Sorry Chuck, I saw the name “ken” affixed to the post directly above yours and somehow substituted it for yours when responding. My apologies for the confusion.

    I also brought up as a tangent something that another commenter, handle Cassidy, contributed to these discussions with which I disagreed. Again, my apologies if you didn’t see that it wasn’t directed at you.

    And if you post comments to a blog, regardless of whom you feel you are addressing, others read them as well and may choose to weigh in if they are so moved. It’s something you should probably come to expect online.

  385. 385

    @Allan:

    regardless of whom you feel you are addressing

    See that thing previous to the quote? It means YOU, not what I feel it means. He’s a dangerous asshole, I don’t have an opinion about you, short of you have argued with me about things that I didn’t say or do or even slightly indicate. In political terms I DO understand the LGBT’s frustration and not just from their POV but also from that of the 2nd A.

    Per Ken, small beer, not a problem.

    My reaction to CelticDragon? Simple, I have enough problems with 2nd A issues without somebody on the “left” being publicly real stupid while putatively on my side.

  386. 386
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Allan:

    Funny stuff, well, actually not, but nice try.

  387. 387
    Little Dreamer says:

    @ken adler:

    DADT is millenia old? Really?

    In Roman times, it was common for men to have sex with other male partners, it was also that way in Greece as I understand it. I’m sorry, what were you saying again? Oh, I get it, you think the biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah were about homosexuality. They weren’t, the stories were actually about inhospitality.

    Women have been discriminated against for much longer than gay men, but, go ahead, believe whatever you wish, and don’t worry about me trying to hoist myself up on a crucifix, I don’t want to be there, neither do I believe in the pseudo-deity who supposedly died on one.

  388. 388
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Are you really that weak?

  389. 389
    celticdragon says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    I have enough problems with 2nd A issues without somebody on the “left” being publicly real stupid while putatively on my side.

    I couldn’t care less about your problems.

    Nor am I “on the left”.

  390. 390
    celticdragon says:

    Make no mistake, if you struck me I’d hurt you until you had no capacity to hurt me further, so what’s your response since you’re armed?

    Maybe you aren’t the type to open flame wars with people to their face? That was what I was referring to, and words sometimes have consequences. Like a damned good slap.

    If you wanted to hypothetically find a person and make asinine insults, and then escalate when they respond…then I suppose you could be accommodated…although I prefer swords, honestly.

    And no…I am not a “tough guy” in any sense of the phrase. I’m not really a guy at all.

    (yes, I would likely be the one ending up hurt and in the hospital…but I’d make sure that the “guy” looked ragged as hell. If I really, really had to fight for my life, I’d be using anything at hand that was lethal if I couldn’t give ground and get away. First target would be the throat and eyes. Since I have degenerative disc disease and can’t really run away that well…my options do narrow)

  391. 391

    No, there is almost no legal justification for going from words to physical violence. The concept of “fighting words” has almost disappeared – check your jurisdiction. In your case you not only wind up in the hospital but also charged and that is plainly stupid and if you actually managed to seriously hurt the “offender” you’d face felony charges along with hospital bills. If you picked up anything at all you’d face felony charges regardless of the seriousness of injuries inflicted. You’d deserve it, too.

    No, I pretty much don’t fuck with people. I vastly prefer not to have an opportunity to hurt someone, verbally or physically. I’ve had people get up in my face verbally and I simply ask them if they find it important to prove they’re an asshole. I’ve responded to threats by calmly suggesting it would be a bad idea, ie: “Now that’s a really bad idea.”

    Despite being quite capable of it, in over twenty years I haven’t had to tear anyone a new ass and I haven’t had to kiss ass to do that. Rethinking your attitude toward words could save you a whole lot of grief and not make you any less of a person. You do what you want, I won’t have to deal with you and that’s fine with me.

  392. 392
    Corner Stone says:

    @Little Dreamer: You are a complete and total fucking douchebag. Next time try a little harder you fucking clown.
    I understand you’re used to a slower pace of life since you fetishize a 127 year old man, but please.

  393. 393
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Emo much? You sound like a sniveling idiot. Get a kleenex and go cry somewhere else.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Big Blog boys in their “Hulk” pajamas, will weep tonight. The Big Blog pajama boys will moan into […]

  2. […] John Cole, just so you know, plenty of us in the LGBT community agree with you. […]

  3. […] a different take, see John Cole here. […]

Comments are closed.