Is there still ANY good reason for Obama to hedge on LGBT issues?

[Ken Burch]

The man's already elected. That was the excuse offered before November. Why can't he just say "I'm in now, I can get off the fence now?"

I mean, it's pretty clear that this isn't an issue that HAS a middle ground.

Why not just commit to a clear pro-LGBT position and get on with it?

I mean, what's happened so far is better than what Dubbikins did, but does it have to be left here?

[havocmom]

1. Ya know, he seems to be inspiring people to rise up and make their wishes known

to legislators who can do something about current laws. Perhaps when the people lead, the leaders will follow on this one too? I hope so. We have SO much to correct.

We The People have been invited back to the policy table. Let the reps know what is needed. Democracy is not a spectator sport. In a democracy, instead of hoping somebody does something, we need to notice that WE are the somebody that has to push change through.

[Ken Burch]

3. I agree with you as to involvement

n/t.

[HopeOverFear]

6. ****standing ovation**** THANK YOU

[LakeSamish706]

8. So... And I agree with you as well.... Do you think that DU is being read by those....

that count in the Obama Administration? It certainly seems that when there is a large contingency of adverse posts to an important item here on DU it gets back to the WH.... Just a thought....

[havocmom]

10. Just posting here & hoping SOMEBODY in the administration reads it

is STILL waiting for SOMEBODY to do something!

In a democracy SOMEBODY is us. Work on your reps. Stop waiting for SOMEBODY

just a suggestion

[masuki bance]

2. He intends on keeping his commitment re: DADT

On May 5, Tsao received a handwritten letter from Obama with a pledge to repeal DADT at some point:


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. Wow, his handwriting looks a lot like mine!

If you need any forgeries done, you know, just sayin'...

[Ken Burch]

11. I could use, oh, I dunno, a stimulus check for maybe eight or nine mil...

Could you hook me up with that?

[katandmoon]

5. *crickets*

[DURHAM D]

7. Why are you asking this question?

Its been obvious all along us queer folk are not his passion.

[LakeSamish706]

9. Sorry, but I don't think that is true.... I think he cares deeply about all Americans....

On edit, oh sorry that might just be me that cares....

[StevieM]

12. I'm hoping that he'll appoint Pamela Karlan, who is gay, to the Supreme Court.

I think that she's the best candidate for the job.

I want to believe the best about President Obama. I am trying really hard to like him.

Obama has an opportunity that Bill Clinton would have killed for. The country is more liberal and the Senate is more Democrat. If we can't stand up for these things now, then when can we stand up for them....2040?

Steve

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. The president doesn't appoint SC Justices, he NOMINATES. The

Senate is where confirmation takes place. And for the record, a lot of us think Sotomayor is more qualified.

[StevieM]

14. Point taken about the president nominating, not appointing. I think Judge Sotomayor

is well-qualified. I am simply saying who I think would be best, in terms of my sense as to how she will vote. But all of these people are qualified to serve on the Court.

Steve

[CTyankee]

15. IT is political strategy, IMO. I think he doesn't believe an all out fight with

the religious right is helpful to his agenda on the Big Three: Iraq, the economy and health insurance reform. Basically, he's going to outlast them. We see several states deciding to give marriage rights to all and what happens afterward: NOTHING, nobody's rights suffer and the church goes forward marrying whom they wish and society moves along peacefully. The is the slow route but it is inevitable.

DADT is different in that Obama still has a military mindset in place that he has to deal with on other issues, most importantly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not so easily democratically decided.

Getting flame wars going right now does not serve Obama's interests. I think that is what it comes down to in his thinking.

I don't necessarily agree with that strategy, but I believe that Obama thinks it is the best one.

Just my 2 cents, here...

[snowdays]

16. Eugene Robinson: When Will Obama Stand Tall for Gays?....

As someone pointed out--enough Robertson who is a staunch supported of Pres. Obama is speaking out.



In case you missed this.

Forum Name General Discussion: Presidential
Topic subject Robinson: When Will Obama Stand Tall for Gays?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8397639#8397639
8397639, Robinson: When Will Obama Stand Tall for Gays?
Posted by snowdays on Fri May-08-09 04:02 PM


I stand with Robertson. No more excuses--its past time to spend that political capital on this "matter of fundamental human and civil rights".




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050703055.html

MIA On Gay Marriage
<**front page headline: Robinson: When Will Obama Stand Tall for Gays? >

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, May 8, 2009

.............Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments -- it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage reenlistment -- are often the same, almost word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. It was bigotry then, and it's bigotry now.

Obama should also make the obvious case that forcibly discharging capable, fully trained servicemen and servicewomen for being gay, at a time when our overstretched military is fighting two big wars, can only be described as insane.

What the president shouldn't do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it's not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he's on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

....................
[e-mail]

[QC]

17. Face it. He's just not all that into you. n/t

[stevenleser]

18. No

I think he and his team fears that there is, but I think that the country has moved past this, at least anyone who would consider voting Democratic anyway.

On Edit: I believe Obama will move forward with a pro-gay agenda once Healthcare reform is passed.

[ruggerson]

19. he and his team are stuck in a 1993 mindset where they think these issues are politically toxic

What they don't seem to get is that the country has changed dramatically since then.

80% of the country supports getting rid of DADT, that's more than the support for his stimulus package, budget, bank bailout, etc.

Yet they still think it's going to cost them politically.

I'm hoping that as Obama gets more surefooted in the job, he will be capable of demonstrating courage.

This is the big civil rights movement of our time and he's got to start dealing with it.

[liberalpragmatist]

21. I don't think he thinks DADT repeal will hurt him POLITICALLY...

... I think he's afraid it'll hurt him MILITARILY. He doesn't want to pick a fight with the military brass right now, in the middle of two wars and being a young, liberal Democrat - the type the military tends to be suspicious of.

That being said, I think he should do it - sign an executive order that, without repealing it, orders the military to cease investigations. Then announce a "review," which would likely conclude that DADT should be repealed and call on Congress to repeal it.

[ruggerson]

23. that's exactly what I think he should do too

and the polling numbers in the military show a hefty majority want to get rid of DADT (not as high as the general public, but a majority).

The impediments are the military brass and people up on the Hill like Ike Skelton.

So a few 60+ year old men are thwarting the will of tens of millions of people on this one.

Obama should do as you suggest - pen an executive order stopping the investigations, thus neutering DADT immediately, and then start the wheels in motion to repeal it.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Nope. Never was.

[lunatica]

22. Perhaps he wants the issue to go to the Supreme Court

So the Constitutional law of equal rights becomes cemented nationally and the issue be taken out of the hands of the religious fanatics forever. If he overturns existing policy outright his policy can be overturned in the future. But once it's decided at the Supreme Court level it's likely to stick just like all the other civil rights.

[MADem]

24. Pragmatically, yes. No shooting the messenger, please.

In order to dump DADT, you have to dump DOMA. Otherwise, lifting DADT would leave gay servicemembers in a "separate but unequal" conundrum. See, the military is a FEDERAL outfit, and DOMA doesn't recognize marriage at the federal level.

So, a gay servicemember, serving openly, would be denied the same "benefits of marriage" (ID card for spouse, medical care, dental care, child care, family services, MWR, military housing, military transportation to the spouse's duty station, command sponsorship overseas...I'm just getting started, here but you get the idea).

The gay servicemember would be serving in a "separate and unequal" environment, if he or she wanted to get married.

Thus, you have to dump DOMA before you can institute DADT, because if you don't, there will be a lawsuit, that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't know about you, but I don't want this court, as it is currently constructed, and even with a tweak or two, ruling on this issue.

If he leaves the marriage issue to the states, and the states, one by one, and sooner rather than later, establish marriage equality for all, then the argument that DOMA is somehow the will or sense of the people falls by the wayside. Obama won't have to go to Congress and demand marriage rights at all, it won't be like he's "decreeing" or the Congress is "imposing" federal marriage rights, because more and more of the states, by their own laws, aren't buying that shit. That denies the wedge issue to the GOP.

But what about the WAITING, you ask? Hasn't there been enough waiting? Why yes, there has.

In my view, Congress doesn't even have to wait until a majority of the states have marriage equality, either. All Congress has to do is just repeal the law without comment, because as the years have passed, it's plainly not the sense of the people that DOMA is an attitude shared by many citizens in many states...and don't minorities deserve protection, too? The Congress don't have to actively endorse marriage equality either (because there are individuals in the Congress who aren't ready to do that), they just need to make DOMA go away because plenty of "We, The People" don't agree with it, and we've made that clear with the laws we've passed in our own states.

To emphasize, the Congress doesn't have to create a fundie-head-exploding, wedge-issue, federal law saying "Wheeee! Marriage Equality for all!" or wait until a preponderance of states buy off on equal marriage rights. They can simply say "Geez, the trend at the state level is equality of rights with regard to marriage/civil unions, it's going in the OPPOSITE direction of DOMA, so we're better off just staying silent on the matter of marriage equality, and not imposing our attitudes on states, which plainly differ," and simply knock the DOMA law off the books without saying "Here's our stamp of approval on equal marriage rights."

In that case, the issue of marriage simply devolves back to the states, where it's been quite comfortable for many years before DOMA gummed up the works. And once that happens, we're off to the races. DADT will be next to go, because there will be nothing standing in the way to force a "separate but unequal" quality of military service for gay personnel.

[BR_Parkway]

25. You know, as GLBT - I was once again prepared to be tossed beneath the bus

especially with the Murkuskey and Warren fiascos. It's a very typical "after the election" cycle we go through - we're needed for votes and dollars before the polls close, we're the embarrassing crazy aunt in the attic afterwards.

But watching how he's setting up things in other areas to push conversations in certain directions to get his policies not just accepted but desired by such a large portion of the population.....I'm going to say I'm content to let the man work this out in his time-table. He's got such fantastic political instincts - I'm thinking that when he does do certain things, it'll be the time that gets the most support from the American public rather than the time that it can be hammered through but resented and used as a tool to organize against.

I'm thinking of things like Prop 8 - CA marriage equality came down from on high (a welcome thing) but the pro equality side failed to see/act on the resentments - the anti-equality crowd was quick to take it up and push it to a face slapping electoral victory.

I think back to when Obama would say on the campaign trail that it was up to us, not him to fix things in DC that he was continually reminding us that we would need to be the grassroots pressure on the Congress & media.

And as we've seen with the recent rulings in Iowa, the legislators in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire - the recent polls showing that the majority of American's support equal treatment - the backlash against the Religious Wrong and their fear of being publicly called bigots - along with the almost blah reporting (Maine passed gay marriage laws today, but in other breaking news, there's a light out at the local drive thru...) that there's been an historic shift in attitudes around the country. Had Obama used the bully pulpit, I'm not so sure we'd see as much progress as we have so far - there's too much red meat that would have fed the GOP base which would have created organized opposition. As it is, he's simply letting things roll out and giving them nothing to fight back with which is why the GOP is so disorganized - they've reduced themselves to talking points and he's giving them nothing to talk about besides the horror of elevating an "empathetic" judge to SCOTUS.

So for now, this gay man is content to watch and wait for a while - I don't have to like every decision he makes - but I'm certainly willing to say his political skills and ability to read the winds to know exactly when to press to get things accomplished far, far out-distances mine.