Blogs Jan 25, 2010 at 1:57 pm

State of the Union: The End of DADT?

Dominic Holden
Back to article

Comments

1
No.
slaggy on January 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM Report this
2
I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Urgutha Forka on January 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM Report this
3
Would be nice, but not holding my breath.
boxofbirds on January 25, 2010 at 2:07 PM Report this
4
It's only been a year. Why start now?
on January 25, 2010 at 2:08 PM Report this
5
Repealing DADT will only mean Obama would rather see us dead than married to each other.
Roscoe on January 25, 2010 at 2:11 PM Report this
6
Well, I was going to ask is repealing DADT would end the constant stream of anti-Obama bitching and squealing from SLOG, but I guess these comments answered that question... The gay community will not be happy until Obama is voted out of office.
eric (the other one) on January 25, 2010 at 2:14 PM Report this
7
It would be brilliant if he did. For no other reason than to get the right wing frothing focused on something that exposes all that frothing for what it really is... you know... frothing!
Bean on January 25, 2010 at 2:21 PM Report this
8
It would be nice but honestly I'm not holding my breath either. All we hear from this corporate clown are nice speeches and lots of promises that are backed up with no action.

Cato the Younger Younger on January 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM Report this
9
I'll believe it when I see it. I like Obama well enough on other issues, but he has been quite disappointing in regards to gay issues. He has been a tepid supporter at best, and has shown no spine or initiative. Given that the senate has been reluctant to deal with DADT, I doubt Obama will stick his neck out either.
Reverse Polarity on January 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM Report this
10
I doubt Obama is moving himself to the Left on social issues. We're not living in an episode of West Wing.

six shooter on January 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM Report this
11
*sigh* West Wing, How I miss Leo!!
Cato the Younger Younger on January 25, 2010 at 2:43 PM Report this
12
Nope, nah, nadda, no way.
brian on January 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM Report this
13
Eric @6: If Obama actually DOES repeal DADT, you might see a lot less anti-Obama bitching on SLOG. But talk is cheap -- especially after a year of not just doing nothing, but of his justice department actually filing a brief in support of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
on January 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM Report this
14
Why should Obama "give" anything to the lgbt community since most people aren't willing to fight for it? Most of us sit on our asses and attack those who do take a principled stand and insist there's nothing we can do except play bitch to the Democratic Party. If there is no fight, we will not win. Fucking 80% of the country, including a majority of Republicans, want an end to DADT. The reason the Obama and the Democrats won't act on this and many other progressive measures is because THEY DON'T WANT TO.
on January 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM Report this
15
At best, we may see some "non-binding" legislation vaguely supporting the repeal, while alluding to the notion that homosexuals "might" be similar to pigfuckers, all in the name of bipartisanship.
Reg on January 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM Report this
16
Why should he bother? The gays will hate him either way.
seandr on January 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM Report this
17
Hope so.
This would really fire the troops up for the fall campaign.
on January 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM Report this
18
I don't see how delaying hearing on repealing DADT is a sign of progress. If we apply Occam's razor and ask what is the simplest, most obvious explanation, I think it is that the Senate is delaying holding hearings on repeal because it is DELAYING REPEAL. (Which is the first thing they do before they drop it entirely.) There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
bobbo on January 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM Report this
19
Congrats on catching up to Canada, even if it took you two decades to do it.
Will in Seattle on January 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM Report this
20
@11: I miss CJ.
supergp on January 25, 2010 at 6:03 PM Report this
21
ppphhtttt -- yeah right.
mmennonno on January 25, 2010 at 6:56 PM Report this
22
Maybe this is the reason why Obama has put it off for so long. He needed something to get his base rallied behind after the speech if he couldn't do it on health care.

So does this mean that we're now being used as a distraction from the president's deficiencies in other places?
kcrobinson on January 25, 2010 at 7:14 PM Report this
23
@22: Stirring up shit about teh gayz in order to get the health insurance reform bill passed would be an interesting move.
Greg on January 25, 2010 at 9:55 PM Report this
24
LOL ROTF!!!... Yeah! That'll be the day...
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on January 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM Report this

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview
Posted by (your name here)

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

Editors' Picks

The Satanic and Satisfying Pleasure of Being Passive Aggressive
Sleeping with Strangers
Are You Ready for Summer?
I Think We're Having Fun
The Downtown Jail Is Overflowing
How RuPaul Changed My Life
The Stranger
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You
Support The Stranger
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134