Which is why we need the October 11th March on Washington DC. http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?p…

We need to act now to be our own firece advocates.

I'm still amazed that the "fierce advocate" who claimed that change must come from Congress is now putting up obstacles for that to happen. But, really, why should I be amazed? Obama has done nothing but back track and throw gay people under the bus since he took office. What really bothers me is that soooo many gay people are completely uninformed and think that he is still working for us.

I do believe that change will come over the next few years (the repeal of DADT and possibly (hopefully) of DOMA. And then during the next campaign Obama will let everyone know how much he did to help our fight, which is nothing. He won't get another vote from me if change doesn't come from HIM. He's a fraud, plain and simple. And meanwhile, a couple more gay servicemen or women will be discharged today because of DADT.

maybe in an effort to maintain support for health care reform, the harder of the two, he's pushing this off til after it passes? one can only hope.

lord knows the wackjob wingnuts in this country get rabid when they see homosexuals not being repressed.

Did it occur to Rachel Maddow to ask someone from the White House or congressional leadership why they don't think now is the right time?

#3: Lord knows that if he continues to antagonize the gays like this, he may have a hard time pushing his health agenda.

I know he's completely put me off.

Did you hear that now the white house is going to bestow the presidential medal of freedom on Harvey Milk on August 12th?

It seems like they keep holding these press conferences and events designed to show their "support" for the LGBT community, while behind the scenes they keep screwing us.

Hope ---> Disillusion

Hmmmm, an oily lawyer from the nexus of political corruption throws us under the bus after he uses us to get elected. Wow, who'd a thunk it? TOLD YA SO!!!!

1. I can't see the video right now, what is it?

2. At this point, what does Obama have to gain politically by preventing the repeal of DADT and backtracking on his other promises to LBGTs? It's not like the social conservatives out there are going to be thinking, "well, I'm not sure I can trust that foreigner nigra in the White House, but at least he's keeping the queers in their place so that's good". No, there's nothing out there that's going to appease their frothing hatred of Obama, because Obama is and never will be One Of Them. Meanwhile, he continues to piss off progressives who care about equality on principle, and he pisses off middle-of-the-road allies who care about LGBT issues because we're their relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Nothing to gain, plenty to lose.

So, so, so sad and disappointed.

Clinton expended political capital in his first term over the relatively small agenda point of gays in the military, ended up with this watered-down compromise which pleases nobody, and subsequently failed to gain traction on substantive health care reform. Now that the fight over reform is down to a few "moderate" Democrats, Obama has evidently learned from Clinton's example and decided not to engage on this Culture War issue just in time to give the Blue Dogs an excuse to vote the way their patrons in the Insurance Industry want them to. Whatever one may think of the consequences of this decision, it's hard to deny this is politically sound strategy.

I'm curious: Do people have to sign any pieces of paper when they join the military? Are the rules clearly explained in writing? Is anyone being compelled to sign?

40 million uninsured Americans means a lot of preventable deaths. Any sane assessment of the relative urgency of these issues comes down on the side of health care reform. Not an either/or proposition, but a first-this-and-then-that calculation.

Imagine how much worse things would be if we hadn't elected such a "fierce advocate" of gay rights last November

Really? Criticism is fair, but this is absurd. Just who would be better? Hillary Clinton? Fucking McCain?

Also, @ 8: seriously, go fuck yourself.

What the fuck?

meanwhile, he's fiercely advocating for euthanasia of the elderly. JK!

Well #6, Obama pretty much as bailed on anything of Health Care Reform that will actually work. I mean you aren't going to see Health Care Reform with Big Pharma and the insurance giants at the table dictating terms. (Remember the joys of Welfare Reform and Campaign Finance Reform? D.C. LOVES reform)

So yeah, it would be nice if Obama would stop acting like a reality TV star and actually do something.

Also, @ 8: seriously, go fuck yourself

Looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of his binky today. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been any worse, and at least McCain admitted that he wouldn't have done anything for us. So why you don't go fuck yourself?

@2: The problem is our choices in elections are between democrats, who aren't interested in helping but will at least do no harm, and republicans, who want to return to the 1950s when gays were out of sight.

@17: I completely agree with you; we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. But I do take issue with what you say about Dems who "will at least do no harm." DADT is harming servicemen and women every day. But you're right: we're fucked either way.

@11: If there is a political strategy, the WH is doing a good job at covering it up. Rep. Hastings made it very clear that, when they bullied him into dropping his amendment, they indicated no over-all strategy.

@20: Point taken. I guess "no additional harm" would have been a better way of putting it.

I think there might be something to the idea that Obama over-learned the lesson of the Clinton term, and now thinks that gay issues will suck his political capital dry.

She never asked him to name names. WHO told him to withdraw the ammendment?!?!?!?

Obama is going to give Harvey Milk the medal of freedom???

What is that, some Brokeback mountain theory of fierce gay advocate, IE "The only good fag is a dead fag??????"

@11 If you are interested in joining the military you have to sign a paper that says you will not engage in homosexual activity or attempt to marry someone of the same gender, or engage in practices that would lead to the assumption that you would marry someone of the same gender.
I was in ROTC in college and I signed the paper. I was willing to hide myself to get money for college. I didn't join up because I couldn't justify lying about myself and fighting an illegal war.

Sorry, I meant @9.

But don't you guys understand? His administration is just too BUSY to... refrain from actively working against the repeal of DADT.

One argument that can be made is that this measure didn't really solve the overall problem. It would have temporarily defunded the enforcement of DADT, but not overturned the policy. The policy would have remained. At any time in the future, like next year's budget, DADT funding could have been reallocated and enforced again. So at best this would have put a temporary halt to ongoing investigations. That would certainly help short-term, but it could also give cover to politicians to then duck the issue of fully overturning DADT.

I'm happy to let this slide if the end result is completely reversing DADT.

You're all a bunch of trolls.

@28 - if by trolls you mean they talk a lot but aren't willing to physically show up and protest and risk arrest ...

yeah, you're right.

Civil rights don't come to those who are civil in their pursuit of them.

#17, The real problem is people blindly believe that Republicans and Democrats ARE the only choices. They're not. Vote for what your conscience tells you. Not for what the Dems and the Repubs tell you. They're both excellent at convincing people that if you don't vote for one of their candidates then your vote is wasted. Bullshit. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast at all.

@30: They're not the only choices, but they're the only ones that are going to get elected. The way our government is set up pretty much makes two-party rule the only stable state. Historically speaking, when a third party rose to power it always resulted in one of the existing two parties declining into irrelevance.

An unfortunate result of this is if you normally vote Democratic, and you vote third party, you're making it easier for the Republican to win, which probably isn't what you'd prefer.

Obama's never been a fierce advocate. How much can you advocate gay rights if you don't support the right of homosexuals to marry? That pretty much makes you a bigot in my book.

I'd never heard of Hastings before. He was very well spoken.

Is it possible to follow the pointing fingers? If the time is not yet ripe, then we should be able to get a clear answer as to what conditions are ripe. We should be able to find out who pressured Hastings, and what their excuses are.

This is, according to Obama supposed to be a transparent administration, right? Or is that me being naïve again?

Until I hear all the major generals say that they see no problem with homosexual being open in the service, in a combat zone, I wont believe that "members of the military are in favor" line. All americans are do not serve in our military, and so the people who should be polled are our military service men and woman.