Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Politics / Homo What He Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Peter Staley wonders why some very basic moves that would have established the president's bona fides early on in HIV policy have simply languished undone. Like, ahem, removing the HIV travel ban. It was backed by Bush, overwhelmingly passed by the last Congress, passed last summer... and yet the Obama administration has barely moved on it. Yes, there has been a very welcome boost to HIV research funding and one leading gay appointee, John Berry. But the rest is an awkward, inactive silence.Their apparent resistance to anything pro-gay—delaying repeal of DADT indefinitely, freezing with fear on anything to do with civil unions or marriage—is beginning to make the Clintonites in the primaries seem prescient; and those of us in the gay movement who backed Obama seem like fools. Someone needs to get things moving in the right direction. Soon.
Like I've said before...
Express the least dissatisfaction with the Obama administration on gay issues—note the disconnect between the fierce urgency of the promises made during the campaign and the total silence on gay issues since the inauguration—and folks start barking about how utterly trivial gay issues are in comparison to, say, the economy, the situation in Pakistan, pandemic flu, etc., etc., etc. And he hasn't moved on this divisive social issues now—on DADT, on DOMA, on the HIV travel ban—because he had to focus on the big things during his first hundred days. But the Obama administration has moved on numerous other issues that are arguably trivial (high-speed rail corridors) and he's moved on issues that are every bit as maddening to social conservatives as progress on gay issues (stem-cell research, lifting the gag rule). So... what's the holdup?
If gay issues are trivial, well, then perhaps straight Obama supporters impatient with the expectations of gay Obama supporters should be upset with Obama. He's the one, after all, who raised our expectations by making promises to us during the campaign. And the triviality of gay issues is just as good an argument for moving on gay issues now as it is against moving on them. Take action on DOMA and DADT and the HIV travel ban and if the social conservatives howl—excuse me: when they howl—Obama should remind Congress that Americans were fully aware of the promises he made to the gay community; John McCain and Sarah Palin and the GOP made sure of that. And we voted for him into office anyway, we endorsed his agenda, including his big, fat gay agenda. Then Obama can slam them for bogging down on trivial issues like repealing DOMA and enacting civil unions at the federal level—a move that will affect roughly 3% of the couples in the United States—while there are bigger, more important issues to focus on, like health care and the economy, which affect us all.
Share via
1
I think that last paragraph should all be in bold, for emphasis. It's something that Obama needs to hear. Again and again, apparently.
2
Oh, I totally agree. Ending the HIV travel ban would take two minutes and a stroke of a pen, and could presumably even be sold as a budget efficiency measure -- god knows how many bureaucrats are doing not but writing memos about policy enforcement and keeping track of who's going to be subject to it or not (which means in reality not very many people; Sullivan's still here, for instance). Just, easy, and with no real repercussions -- what's the holdup? Obama needs to TAKE CHARGE here.
3
He'll need to weigh in either way in the next 30 days, the Washington DC council just voted to recognize same sex marriages from other states. Congress has 30 days to block it or let it go thanks to DC's status as a ward of the Feds. The sponsoring (openly gay) councilman has stated that their next step is full gay marriage.
4
DADT is far more important than the travel ban.
Tell you what, once the other nations blink on their travel bans, we'll blink on ours, m'k?
Tell you what, once the other nations blink on their travel bans, we'll blink on ours, m'k?
5
TOTALLY AGREE!! my enthusiasm for obama is beginning to wane. these issues are as significant as any restrictive racial issues of the past and i doubt he'd be stalling on them. could it be his christian faith?
8
We wouldn't be in this predicament if we had voted for McCain/Palin, would we? Didn't think so.
Bed made, lying in it must commence.
Bed made, lying in it must commence.
9
Don't forget (in your list of things that piss off social conservatives) changing a 30-year ban on USAID funding for overseas "family planning."
11
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Obama is first and foremost a Bible-thumper. He's on record as saying he opposes gay marriage, and I think it's pretty obvious by now that he's not very pro-gay on any level.
You voted for him, you're stuck with him. Deal with it.
You voted for him, you're stuck with him. Deal with it.
12
Nonsense, I'm sick and tired of Mr Savages continual attacks on the President he's childish and comes off as an arrogant egotistic person. Is that how Mr Savage wants all to view gays?
Anyone who refuses to see the obvious, all the economic challenges, two wars, and the fact that the President barely got fifty two percent of the vote compared to mcinsane gramps', are not acknowledging that he cannot have the luxury to drive through all the wish list items of pampered spoiled groups when there are other more pressing issues like the loss of jobs and people actually going hungry in the richest nation on earth.
Anyone who refuses to see the obvious, all the economic challenges, two wars, and the fact that the President barely got fifty two percent of the vote compared to mcinsane gramps', are not acknowledging that he cannot have the luxury to drive through all the wish list items of pampered spoiled groups when there are other more pressing issues like the loss of jobs and people actually going hungry in the richest nation on earth.
13
Obama will sign the hate crimes reporting bill - Bush refused - quit whining - 100 days is nothing compared to 8 years, which will be the length of his presidency
you people doing meth?
you people doing meth?
14
Sara, people with HIV are legally barred from entering the United States.
Obviously the ban is not well-enforced. Sullivan has HIV and has lived here for many years. It's more of a last-ditch tool to keep out "troublemakers" like AIDS activists and other mid-eighties bugaboos. But it still means that every HIV-positive person who flies here lives in fear that a customs and immigration fucker will find his medicines.
Obviously the ban is not well-enforced. Sullivan has HIV and has lived here for many years. It's more of a last-ditch tool to keep out "troublemakers" like AIDS activists and other mid-eighties bugaboos. But it still means that every HIV-positive person who flies here lives in fear that a customs and immigration fucker will find his medicines.
15
#12 for the win, in my opinion.
#11 = whatever! McBush would have been Mr. Uber-Progressive?? I.Think.Not
#11 = whatever! McBush would have been Mr. Uber-Progressive?? I.Think.Not
16
My hope is that the progress on gay rights that's been happening at the state level since the election (marriage equality in Vermont and Iowa, probably passage in Maine) will force the Obama administration into a position where it can't stall or delay any longer on fulfilling some of these commitments.
17
I think it's charming that Loveschild think people with HIV are pampered and spoiled. No matter how much she talks about Jesus, her bubbling cauldron of hate always spills over. We know who you REALLY are, darlin'.
18
What's the hold up, Dan? Have you forgotten how DADT came about? Like Secretary Gates said last month, "...you've got to do it [repeal DADT] right, and very carefully." Because if you fail, like the Big Dog did in '93, then you've done much worse than just return to the status quo. Ask the 12,500 men and women who've been expelled in the past 16 years of DADT what happens when you fail to reverse an inequity. We can't afford Obama to fail on this one, or another couple generations of young homophobes will grow up knowing that the sissy boys can't serve their country, and so are fair game for bashing.
20
So how will passing anti-discriminatory legislation prevent him from also addressing issues like the economic crash, wars, job losses, etc? You don't get to be President if you can't multi-task. The only reason that anti-discrimination laws would be at all distracting is because the bigots, Haggards, and anyone else with a crucifix up his or her ass would raise a giant stink about it. Other than dealing with the giant nursery of whining babies that is the Republican Party, all Obama needs to do is voice some support for certain measures and sign a few papers. There's not some supply tank of "priorities" that can run dry if Obama recognizes more than one or two at a time.
Why should gay rights be among his priorities? Gee, maybe because backing gay rights was one of his major campaign platforms. Maybe because having anti-gay laws written into the legal codes of what is supposed to be the leader of the free world is inexcusable and needs to change. And the hatred and stupidity of a few home-schooled Texans shouldn't be enough to stop it.
Also, kudos to everyone saying that gays shouldn't push so hard for their rights because hey, at least they have SOME of them, and things could theoretically be WORSE. Could be a lot BETTER, too, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If you get shot in the stomach, you don't just say, "oh well, could be worse, I could have been shot in the head. No need to rush to the hospital or anything; that would be rude!"
Why should gay rights be among his priorities? Gee, maybe because backing gay rights was one of his major campaign platforms. Maybe because having anti-gay laws written into the legal codes of what is supposed to be the leader of the free world is inexcusable and needs to change. And the hatred and stupidity of a few home-schooled Texans shouldn't be enough to stop it.
Also, kudos to everyone saying that gays shouldn't push so hard for their rights because hey, at least they have SOME of them, and things could theoretically be WORSE. Could be a lot BETTER, too, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If you get shot in the stomach, you don't just say, "oh well, could be worse, I could have been shot in the head. No need to rush to the hospital or anything; that would be rude!"
21
Has the official spokespeople of the gay community been happy at all since Nov 4th? Blame blacks/Obama for Prop 8, complain about Rick Warren, and every 4 to 6 weeks announce how Obama is dragging his feet on one gay issue after another; then either say we would have been as well off with McCain/Palin (a mindbogglingly stupid idea) or complain about how Hillary would have been a "fierce" advocate because she marched in some gay pride parades (all the while promising to uphold most of DOMA, which her husband signed of course.)
I do think Obama's priority on these issues is not as high as other issues though, and part of that I blame on some of his personal beliefs, and part I blame on his caution, some of which is warranted, and some of which is really just unnecessary.
I do think Obama's priority on these issues is not as high as other issues though, and part of that I blame on some of his personal beliefs, and part I blame on his caution, some of which is warranted, and some of which is really just unnecessary.
22
Look, the guy is multi-tasking like crazy, only had a full cabinet for a few days, and now you're wanting all your problems solved right now?
Get real.
Get real.
24
Dan, do we really want Obama to take on DOMA right now?
Gay marriage is being fought and won at the state level. Obama should only take up the federal fight if he's reasonably confident he would win, and it's not clear that he would. A loss at the federal level would seriously harm both the cause and his presidency.
Gay marriage is being fought and won at the state level. Obama should only take up the federal fight if he's reasonably confident he would win, and it's not clear that he would. A loss at the federal level would seriously harm both the cause and his presidency.
25
Like I said, he's a pol. It's not really Clinton love, it was more sort of realizing that Obama while great on many levels blah blah blah just wasn't the be all and end all and magnificent God some Obamaphiles thought he was. And Clinton wasn't as evil or bad as many thought. They all kind of top out at about a 6 or 7 out of ten, you know? In fact, my dream candidate would just say he or she is for full gay marriage now, it's not trivial, and blast away the stupid lies that any straight couple or person is harmed in any way at all by gay marriage. Same with drug decriminalization, single payer, funding people to go to college, mandatory six weeks paid vacation, full employment policies, high speed trains, saying fuck yes the damn Turks committed genocide, etc. etc. Get on with it and stop being so scared. That's what they all need to hear. But when someone like Obama is sitting there backtracking on promises there shouldn't be any debate about whether that's okay. It's not. And when he backs a guy like Specter in next year's primary against people like Sestak and Specter has said he will vote AGAINST HEALTH CARE AND AGAINST UNIONS you have to ask...WTF??
Is Obama now descending to say a 6.5 out of ten? A 6?
Hey I like the stim package the Ledbetter law lots of things he's done, I like having some movement on torture like stopping it -- but he ain't prosecuting known torturers, and he's not even using his huge grass roots base to change politics, and all in all, he's just not all that.
IMHO.
Unity etc.
Is Obama now descending to say a 6.5 out of ten? A 6?
Hey I like the stim package the Ledbetter law lots of things he's done, I like having some movement on torture like stopping it -- but he ain't prosecuting known torturers, and he's not even using his huge grass roots base to change politics, and all in all, he's just not all that.
IMHO.
Unity etc.
26
Gee Dan, always with the whining, bitchin and crying.
Obama can't be distracted with trivialities like Gay issues;
he's got a new dog to housebreak, for cryin out loud!
Obama can't be distracted with trivialities like Gay issues;
he's got a new dog to housebreak, for cryin out loud!
27
Thinking more about this, DOMA is a law passed by Congress. As such, what exactly do you want Obama to do about it?
You should be bitching at Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Jim McDermott, since they've all been in office much longer than Obama, and DOMA is in their bailiwick.
Both DOMA and DADT are Dan, what do you and A
You should be bitching at Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Jim McDermott, since they've all been in office much longer than Obama, and DOMA is in their bailiwick.
Both DOMA and DADT are Dan, what do you and A
29
@24 has it right - Obama's doing what he should be doing for now - let the momentum build up at the state level (as it is - we're winning) and take federal action when the wind is at his back. If there wasn't such an effective grassroots movement right now, things might be different - but the last thing we need long-term are right-wingers whining about how Obama "forced" an unwanted policy down the "throats" of the states, when we can in fact have the states take most of the action for now, and Obama can dispatch the federal pieces once it's clear that he's not the one driving the policy.
That said, if this doesn't all happen by the end of his first term I'll be mighty pissed. But give it some time - things are moving on their own, and Obama is wise to let them take their course.
That said, if this doesn't all happen by the end of his first term I'll be mighty pissed. But give it some time - things are moving on their own, and Obama is wise to let them take their course.
30
Ending the HIV travel ban will take a lot more than two minutes and the stroke of a pen.
Federal agencies have to go through the same kind cumbersome rulemaking process to amend or repeal a regulation (like the DHS HIV ban) that they have to go through to promulgate a new regulation (including taking public comment on the proposed amendment/repeal), and federal agency rulemaking often takes two to three years from start to finish.
It took me a whole semester of admin law just to learn that.
Federal agencies have to go through the same kind cumbersome rulemaking process to amend or repeal a regulation (like the DHS HIV ban) that they have to go through to promulgate a new regulation (including taking public comment on the proposed amendment/repeal), and federal agency rulemaking often takes two to three years from start to finish.
It took me a whole semester of admin law just to learn that.
31
That said, please keep making noise for gay rights. I'm not saying "give up" - quite the opposite. Just don't despair that nothing will ever move just because Obama's not doing it right now.
32
It's not that he hasn't already completed his promises to the gay community. It's that he's seemingly abandoned them entirely. He's payed them lip service and stopped there, which is inexcusable. Saying that he's "busy" is not a reason to put the civil rights of his citizens on hold, especially with a large enough Dem majority that anti-discrimination legislation has the potential to pass with limited struggle. Lots of whining from the right, maybe, but that shouldn't be enough to make him "cautious." It's better now than in two years (when congress might gain a few more republicans) or four (when he may get voted out of office for Santorum-Palin, especially since he will have lost a lot of enthusiastic support from the gay community).
33
I maintain the hope and the faith that the Obama administration is fully on board with both an expansion of gay rights and the granting of full rights by way of legalized gay marriage.
I believe it would be counter-productive for Obama to push this issue right now; meaning, he'd do more harm than good for the cause.
Dan, you have become fond of the "We're winning" mantra. And it's true. Obama is cognizant of the progress being made, and he'll take the rights steps at the right time to insure lasting, meaningful victories. Timing matters in politics. Leadership matters as well, and that's what you're asking for. Obama will lead, but leadership includes being wise in action.
I get the frustration. Part of me is right there ready to take arms as Marion Barry suggested today. I think this issue is critical to the future of a free nation. None of the philosophy behind a democratic state works if basic human rights aren't guaranteed. But, to set this up in the way you've done, equating gay rights with any action that Obama has taken and concluding that he must think such and such are more important to Obama ignores political wisdom and political reality.
We could push this fight to a civil war. Or, we could be strategic for another decade and win. Both options have merits and both options have dire consequences.
I trust Obama to choose wisely, and given the singular option we had to trust McCain to choose wisely, I'm glad we have Obama in office.
I believe it would be counter-productive for Obama to push this issue right now; meaning, he'd do more harm than good for the cause.
Dan, you have become fond of the "We're winning" mantra. And it's true. Obama is cognizant of the progress being made, and he'll take the rights steps at the right time to insure lasting, meaningful victories. Timing matters in politics. Leadership matters as well, and that's what you're asking for. Obama will lead, but leadership includes being wise in action.
I get the frustration. Part of me is right there ready to take arms as Marion Barry suggested today. I think this issue is critical to the future of a free nation. None of the philosophy behind a democratic state works if basic human rights aren't guaranteed. But, to set this up in the way you've done, equating gay rights with any action that Obama has taken and concluding that he must think such and such are more important to Obama ignores political wisdom and political reality.
We could push this fight to a civil war. Or, we could be strategic for another decade and win. Both options have merits and both options have dire consequences.
I trust Obama to choose wisely, and given the singular option we had to trust McCain to choose wisely, I'm glad we have Obama in office.
34
Teh Gay : The Democrat
as
The Religious Right : The Republican
I mean, where the hell else they gonna go?
as
The Religious Right : The Republican
I mean, where the hell else they gonna go?
35
@32:
Santorum-Palin? If the country is really that capable of flipping to these two in all of 3 1/2 years, then Obama and any other Dem is dead in the water. Come on, these two don't stand a chance. Palin is history, and Santorum is even remotely appealing compared with all the other Repub candidates.
Santorum-Palin? If the country is really that capable of flipping to these two in all of 3 1/2 years, then Obama and any other Dem is dead in the water. Come on, these two don't stand a chance. Palin is history, and Santorum is even remotely appealing compared with all the other Repub candidates.
36
I agree with 24 and 29. That said, I would like to have some sort of assurance that Obama is working at honoring his promises. I didn't feel we could trust Bush at his word, I want to believe that we can trust Obama at his word.
37
@30: OK, let me rephrase: it won't take any more than a stroke of the pen FROM OBAMA. The prez doesn't do any of that; the staff of literally millions does it when he says "do it". The correct answer to "but it's complicated" is "DO IT; now, what's next on the agenda?"
Would it be mostly symbolic? Sure. A little symbolism from Obama that says "stay with me, camera guy" would be an easy way to prove that he's still on board with human rights even though everyone knows he's very busy.
Would it be mostly symbolic? Sure. A little symbolism from Obama that says "stay with me, camera guy" would be an easy way to prove that he's still on board with human rights even though everyone knows he's very busy.
38
Yo- folks: over at the NYTimes there's several articles about Obama's moves to repeal DADT.
It's not that gay issues are trivial, it's that even Obama has only 24 hours in a day, and some stuff will have to get done tomorrow.I would give the man more than 3 months of a 4 year term to get to the issues that matter to you. I suspect that if he can let the States cover the marriage problem, which it looks like they're doing, then there will be no problem with a federal act-if one is needed. States rights are very important to the opposition, and not getting their panties in a bunch if he can avoid it is a sensible move on Obama's part.
He personally may or may not believe in same-sex marriage. What will count is if his administration acts to end this form of discrimination. I believe that the issue will be dealt with, if not right this instant.
It's not that gay issues are trivial, it's that even Obama has only 24 hours in a day, and some stuff will have to get done tomorrow.I would give the man more than 3 months of a 4 year term to get to the issues that matter to you. I suspect that if he can let the States cover the marriage problem, which it looks like they're doing, then there will be no problem with a federal act-if one is needed. States rights are very important to the opposition, and not getting their panties in a bunch if he can avoid it is a sensible move on Obama's part.
He personally may or may not believe in same-sex marriage. What will count is if his administration acts to end this form of discrimination. I believe that the issue will be dealt with, if not right this instant.
39
Personally, I'm willing to give him a year before I start to get pissed off about lack of attention to gay issues. He's got a lot on his plate, and I'm more concerned about the country than I am about gay civil rights.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate other people getting agitated over it. It's good to keep reminding him that we are out there.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate other people getting agitated over it. It's good to keep reminding him that we are out there.
40
Someone please educate me regarding DADT: Isn't sodomy still criminalized in the UCMJ? Wouldn't the repealing of DADT simply mean they could start asking again, and then just discharge (dishonorably) any gay that tells the truth?
My understanding of the situation is that DADT really isn't the issue. We need to decriminalize the codes in the UCMJ that make gay orientation unlivable in the military. After that DADT is irrelevant.
Do I have that right?
My understanding of the situation is that DADT really isn't the issue. We need to decriminalize the codes in the UCMJ that make gay orientation unlivable in the military. After that DADT is irrelevant.
Do I have that right?
41
PS: Now at 24 hours for my second post on the NOM blog. All three remain "awaiting moderation"
Check and see them not there, here: http://nomblog.com/?p=80&cpage=3#comment…
Check and see them not there, here: http://nomblog.com/?p=80&cpage=3#comment…
42
While otherwise generally satisfied with Our O's performance in orifice up 'til now, I'm with you Dan that it's past time for him to do something nice for teh Gayz.
Something realistic, public, and significant. DOMA, DADT, HIV-Ban, something.
Something realistic, public, and significant. DOMA, DADT, HIV-Ban, something.
43
Maybe President Obama is waiting for the Republican Party to fall apart on its own -- which they appear to be doing -- so he can walk down main street and pass any legislation he wants without having to deal with the headache of Hannity, Limbaugh and the Christofascist right wing making a stink and calling him names.
Of course being called names is no excuse for delaying the end of chronic injustice. But perhaps Obama forsees equal rights issues could be a rallying point for the right to re-organize and focus their message, and help the GOP prevent it's impending doom. Or perhaps Obama's just another same old shit different day politician; we should take down our "Hope" posters of Dear Leader; take a lesson from the grass roots organizing that got Obama in the White House in the first place and demand the end of Minnesota's disenfranchisement by seating Al Franken in the Senate and get a new Senate Majority Leader so that nutless SOB Harry Reid can have some time to locate his balls -- Barney Frank would be a good replacement. So would Dan Savage, but alas, he's not a Senator.
Of course being called names is no excuse for delaying the end of chronic injustice. But perhaps Obama forsees equal rights issues could be a rallying point for the right to re-organize and focus their message, and help the GOP prevent it's impending doom. Or perhaps Obama's just another same old shit different day politician; we should take down our "Hope" posters of Dear Leader; take a lesson from the grass roots organizing that got Obama in the White House in the first place and demand the end of Minnesota's disenfranchisement by seating Al Franken in the Senate and get a new Senate Majority Leader so that nutless SOB Harry Reid can have some time to locate his balls -- Barney Frank would be a good replacement. So would Dan Savage, but alas, he's not a Senator.
44
He's barely in four months, and has "seven or eight" crises to deal with. It will happen. Cut him some slack before throwing him into the catagory of a user.
His success domestically, and politically for the rest of his term, is dependent on making new law in Healthcare, Financial re-regulation, Smart-grid, etc, in the next 10 months. After that Iraq has a good chance on unraveling, Afghanistan gets far worse and it's his war, and mid-term elections happen.
However successful he will be with this legislation (or not) - he will turn to HIV policy. He is too good a man not to, and politically adept to know when.
His success domestically, and politically for the rest of his term, is dependent on making new law in Healthcare, Financial re-regulation, Smart-grid, etc, in the next 10 months. After that Iraq has a good chance on unraveling, Afghanistan gets far worse and it's his war, and mid-term elections happen.
However successful he will be with this legislation (or not) - he will turn to HIV policy. He is too good a man not to, and politically adept to know when.
45
35- I was exaggerating when I suggested the possibility of Santorum-Palin being elected in 2012, just as I was exaggerating when I talked about Obama only needing to scribble his signature on some documents to bring anti-discrimination laws into reality. The point, however, is that it is possible that some Republican could win in 2012, and if that happens, any hope of legal gay marriage goes straight down the shitter. Obama is in a better position to pass pro-gay rights legislation than any other President. When I say that it would just take the stroke of a pen, that is relative to what it would take if the Republicans gain more power in 2010, or if the GOP is able to pull their act together and regain their weak illusion of dignity.
The chances of him being voted out are greater if he loses the support of the gay community. This doesn't mean that they'll vote Republican (holy hell, no), but they don't have to. They may vote third party, they might not vote, or they might just not support him so enthusiastically: donating less money, not bothering to endorse him, etc. So if he doesn't work to get some equal rights legislation passed during his first term, the chances are much lower that he will have a second term to do it in. And whoever replaces him, even if it's one of the GOP's more "moderate" members like Giuliani (moderate my ass), will not be friendly to gay rights.
Even if it's strategically prudent to wait until more states pass equal rights legislation before pushing a federal gay marriage bill, that still doesn't mean that he has to sit on his hands and avoid the issue altogether. He can be more active in his support for these statewide bills. He can outright say that his plan is to implement a federal bill once a certain number of states approve pass them on their own. Why not? He would be assuring the gay community that he really has a strategy, and he would not be cramming federal legislation down that states' throats. His active endorsement of such laws could inspire more people to support them in their own states.
But to brush gay issues aside as if they are trivial is an insult, no matter what he's waiting for.
More...
The chances of him being voted out are greater if he loses the support of the gay community. This doesn't mean that they'll vote Republican (holy hell, no), but they don't have to. They may vote third party, they might not vote, or they might just not support him so enthusiastically: donating less money, not bothering to endorse him, etc. So if he doesn't work to get some equal rights legislation passed during his first term, the chances are much lower that he will have a second term to do it in. And whoever replaces him, even if it's one of the GOP's more "moderate" members like Giuliani (moderate my ass), will not be friendly to gay rights.
Even if it's strategically prudent to wait until more states pass equal rights legislation before pushing a federal gay marriage bill, that still doesn't mean that he has to sit on his hands and avoid the issue altogether. He can be more active in his support for these statewide bills. He can outright say that his plan is to implement a federal bill once a certain number of states approve pass them on their own. Why not? He would be assuring the gay community that he really has a strategy, and he would not be cramming federal legislation down that states' throats. His active endorsement of such laws could inspire more people to support them in their own states.
But to brush gay issues aside as if they are trivial is an insult, no matter what he's waiting for.
46
You want to really know why Obama hasn't moved on these issues?
Because he doesn't care. Shocker. A president has pulled the wool over Dan's eyes yet again. It was obvious from the beginning of the never-ending campaign that Obama didn't care about gay rights. From the moment he came out against gay marriage it was clear he didn't care. Sure, he might have thrown the gay community a few minor promises, but here's the thing: he was lying to you.
He doesn't care about your rights, Dan. He never did.
You fell for it.
Because he doesn't care. Shocker. A president has pulled the wool over Dan's eyes yet again. It was obvious from the beginning of the never-ending campaign that Obama didn't care about gay rights. From the moment he came out against gay marriage it was clear he didn't care. Sure, he might have thrown the gay community a few minor promises, but here's the thing: he was lying to you.
He doesn't care about your rights, Dan. He never did.
You fell for it.
48
@ 17: now you're feeding trolls? I am so disappointed.
Also, it is possible to understand Obama has 4 (hopefully 8) years and make noise about gay rights. I think most understand this, however I get a little uncomfortable when people start jumping ship so quickly. I hate rely on such an obvious arguement, but really, this is America. We had two choices, and there is no fucking way Old Man McCain & the crazy Alaska woman would have been better.
Also, it is possible to understand Obama has 4 (hopefully 8) years and make noise about gay rights. I think most understand this, however I get a little uncomfortable when people start jumping ship so quickly. I hate rely on such an obvious arguement, but really, this is America. We had two choices, and there is no fucking way Old Man McCain & the crazy Alaska woman would have been better.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS