http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/16/some-federal-employees-are-more-equal-than-others Comments On: Obama: Some Federal Employees Are More Equal Than Others by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by kim in portland]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:51:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Frau Blucher]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:04:37 -0700 The Stranger Posted by el polacko]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:58:41 -0700 The Stranger
Anyone who still receives Obama spam, unsubscribing is cool! They give you a box to say why you are doing so. It's less meaningful for me because I never gave money during the election (dirt poor at the time), but it did give me a forum for saying something. Have at it, y'all.

As much as he's been sucking corporate ass and letting industry insiders write his policies on the economy, environment and such, the "he has bigger fish to fry" argument holds no weight. He's shown himself to be a liar and a balless political hack, over and over again. Fuck him straight in his lying ass, thank you.
-
Posted by William T. Fuckweiler]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:08:08 -0700 The Stranger
"Hey, everyone, look how little I care!"

** posts about it **

** is unaware of the irony **

Posted by Bonefish]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:23:22 -0700 The Stranger
whatevea.
Posted by Cochise.]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:15:35 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eleven Finger Freak]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:14:46 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eleven Finger Freak]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:13:56 -0700 The Stranger
That said, it would be nice to see President Obama use his bully pulpit to speak out for gay marriage. After he's done dealing with the wrecked economy, two unwinnable wars, a possible revolution in Iran, the thousand-fold retaliation of North Korea, the growing threat of domestic terrorism and ending the 50-odd year stalemate on health care reform, that is. Personally, I'm willing to wait a little bit. Hell, I'm still waiting for him to put our previous POTUS in an orange prison jumpsuit. I guess there's only so much multitasking President Obama is going to engage in...
Posted by Eleven Finger Freak]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:10:58 -0700 The Stranger
Let every federal worker who lacks an "official" dependent designate one person as co-beneficiary. It could be his mom, his neighbor, the janitor, whatever. He's entitled to benefits for at least two people.
Posted by What's fair is fair]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:17:34 -0700 The Stranger
Yeah, now that ECB is gone we str8s are the new minority.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:52:20 -0700 The Stranger
That's the lesson I learned from the Civil Rights Movement, anyway.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:48:09 -0700 The Stranger expect such a utopia so that Obama can finally get down to the petty matter of his citizens' civil rights. Or how it's considered more realistic to wait for world peace and universal prosperity than it is to expect Obama to put gay rights back on his agenda, along with these other "larger" issues.

Or which of the other landmark progressions in civil rights were the only agenda left on the table when they were made. Let's see... during 1954 (Brown v. Board), how well were we getting along with the Soviet Union? Why did Eisenhower bother to send national guard troops to a high school in Little Rock in 1957 when communist guerillas were clearly raising a ruckus in Vietnam? Why did Kennedy send a bunch of troops into Mississippi to support integration there so soon after Bay of Pigs, and during the same year as the Cuban Missile Crisis (and with the Air Force busy spraying agent orange in 'Nam)? Why did Congress bother to pass the Voting Rights Act at a time when we officially had ground troops in Vietnam? How were things with Vietnam, Russia, and Cuba in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed? Just a walk in the park, right?

This is actually kind of fun. You guys should try it. Just google up timelines for the Civil Rights Movement, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and any other historical event you'd like, and see how free and clear the political horizon was when various leaders of US government found the time to get around to petty little matters like civil rights.

Also, what do you people think, anyway; that some window of opportunity will open up while the President is "distracted" signing a DADT repeal, giving Al Qaeda just enough time for another attack? Or that he'll get so preoccupied with urging Congress to repeal DOMA that the economic crisis will just slip his mind and go unaddressed?

This has to be the 80th time I've said this on slog: we're not trying to get Obama to devote his entire presidency to gay rights. We will not hold it against him if whatever efforts he makes on our part end up taking time due to logistic reasons, so long as he actually MAKES some real effort. We just want more than a couple empty gestures and a bunch of active opposition from his administration, which won't interfere with his ability to handle other issues. This is not unreasonable, and anyone who has ever had their civil rights put at risk knows it. Anyone who hasn't had their civil rights limited by the state can stop pretending to be experts on how someone should react to it. The ironic thing is that I'm sure people like "Yo" would take to the streets immediately with passionate tears in their eyes if Obama banned xbox and hot pockets.

Ignoring gay rights is taking up effort and political capital on Obama's part, you know. He's having to determine where the gay community's breaking point is, he's having to figure out how to save face with the gays with hurried memos giving their partners free Uhaul rentals, and he's going to have to justify himself for that DOMA brief (not to mention his DOJ's effort spent writing that brief in the first place). If he'd put that same amount of "distracting" effort into working towards repeals of DOMA, DADT, the HIV travel ban, etc, then he could be halfway towards accomplishing these things by now.

As far as political capital goes, he never had any to lose with the right wing. He could morph into Ronald Reagan himself and drop all taxes and make guns mandatory and reinstate Jim Crow and declare war on France, and the ever-weakening republicans would still call him a pinko socialist. The political capital that he's losing is that which he holds with the gay community who supported him.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:37:32 -0700 The Stranger
Here is the information:

LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS OF A PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE, AS COMPARED TO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

A presidential directive has the same substantive legal effect as an executive order. It is the substance of the presidential action that is determinative, not the form of the document conveying that action.

Both an executive order and a presidential directive remain effective upon a change in administration, unless otherwise specified in the document, and both continue to be effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.

January 29, 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COUNSEL COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive. As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order. We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.

We are aware of no basis for drawing a distinction as to the legal effectiveness of a presidential action based on the form or caption of the written document through which that action is conveyed. Cf. Memorandum for Harold Judson, Assistant Solicitor General, from William H. Rose, Re: Statement of Policy Regarding Certain Strategic Materials (Aug. 28, 1945) (concluding that a letter from President Roosevelt stating the government's policy "constitute[d] a Presidential directive having the force and effect of law," notwithstanding its informality of form). It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner. This principle plainly extends to the legal effectiveness of a document styled as a "presidential directive."

Posted by JohnRichards33]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:58:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Violet_DaGrinder]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:27:22 -0700 The Stranger
keep it up, Dan.


Posted by michael strangeways]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:07:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by joey veltkamp]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:00:33 -0700 The Stranger
& I recently attended a wedding of two of them. & it was so deeply moving. The groom gave this jolt of joy, of happiness, when he saw the bride standing there, just for him.

Could I do what they do or have what they have? I dunno, maybe in a different relationship. Maybe not. But either way, it doesn't mean I get to judge what my newlywed pals or doing..or my gay pals or doing..or even newlyweds or gays I happen to think are bitches..;)

Although monogamy is the standard operating procedure for what we're taught about relationships growing up, different things work for different couples. That doesn't mean that the love they feel for each other is any less real.

It's a civil rights thing. Get with the times.
Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:43:18 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Jason Eckelman]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:59:52 -0700 The Stranger
I never said that gay rights where more important than any other rights, I said they are just as important.

I think that's your problem. You see people fighting for their rights and you think to yourself "but what about me!"
Posted by Brandon J.]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:55:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by fendel]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:53:21 -0700 The Stranger
As long as you continue refering to "them", and espousing that they won't find that they are better "tolerated" with the GOP, and their struggles are "not legitimate and shouldn't be confused with legitimate fights for freedoms". Descriptions you have used over the last two days, you will continue to find your self proclaimed partial support viewed with scepticism. Will you really continue to discuss your gay Christian brothers and sisters as lesser beings as "them", "tolerated", and their stuggle to be treated with full equality under the laws of this country as an "illegitimate" fight? Did Christ's death on the cross not remove all separation between us and them for those who have accepted salvation in Him? Is it so terribly wrong to want to be judged by the content of one's character not by one's sexual orientation?
Posted by kim in portland]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:07:26 -0700 The Stranger We've received a thank you for your input and we'll receive a response soon.

Either way, he knows our position and what we'll do, or should I say--what we won't do.

He's also politically close to a relative of mine. I sent her a copy of my message to him as well.
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:04:19 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Pepper St. Tort Reform]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:59:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by bwhear]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:55:00 -0700 The Stranger