Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Politics / Homo Obama: Some Federal Employees Are More Equal Than Others
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Bet you can't guess which. The straight ones.
President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.
Could the Obama administration possibly be ANY MORE incompetent when it comes to gay issues? Let it leak that you're going "extend federal benefits" to the partners of gay federal employees, hope that this move mollifies furious gay rights organizations and activists still reeling from your DOMA betrayal, and THEN announce that—sorry!—the package of benefits doesn't include the single most important work-related benefit: health insurance.
I'm speechless.
UPDATE: I'm reacting in real time, as I read this story at the NYT and analysis on the blogs. Guess what? It's not an executive order, it's just a "presidential memorandum," which means this directive expires when Obama leaves office. Such fierce advocacy. So brave. And the package was pulled together not because the Obama administration had a secret plan all along to protect and expand the rights of gays and lesbians. Nope. The whole thing was hastily pulled together to save the DNC's big gay fundraiser next week. That's it. The White House admits to the NYT that this isn't about principal. It's damage control:
But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.
Says Pam:
This administration, the Congress and the DNC need to see the LGBT ATM shut down. NOW. That June 26 LGBT DNC fundraiser is toast. No one is buying a partner benefit plan that doesn't include health insurance, for god's sake.
As Keshmeshi helpfully points out in comments, Obama can't extend health care benefits to federal employees himself:
Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.
Which brings us back to sheer insulting incompetence of this idiot maneuver. Why announce a bold plan and an Oval Office signing ceremony for a something-or-other that will "extend federal benefits" to the partners of gay employees... when that package does not include the only workplace benefit that most people can name off the tops of their fucking heads: health insurance? This is your big gesture to mollify your gay critics? This is designed to calm the waters in the wake of your DOMA betrayal? When I wrote earlier tonight that the federal benefits Obama is extending "are by no means trivial," I was naturally operating under the assumption that these benefits would include health insurance. They do not. What benefits will federal employees enjoy the day after tomorrow anyway? Discounted entrance fees to our national parks?
And will Obama send legislation up to Capitol Hill to extend HEALTH BENEFITS to the partners of gay federal employees? The same president who talked such good game—"all that's required is leadership"—on ending DADT and has done fuck all since taking office? The same president who said "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples" and then turned around and argued that the states could ban gay marriage to save money? That guy is going to get legislation through Congress awarding health benefits to gay couples? I kinda doubt it, don't you?
This is worse than insulting. This is outrageous, another slap in the face, salt in the wound left by last week's DOMA betrayal. Fuck the Obama administration. That DNC fundraiser next week has to be shut down.
Share via
1
Could you be more incompetent when it comes to understanding how the government of this country works? Probably not. You should sit in on your sons basic civic course.
2
"Could the Obama administration possibly be MORE incompetent on gay issues?"
Well, they could be the Bush administration. They thought 'gay' still meant 'happy'.
Well, they could be the Bush administration. They thought 'gay' still meant 'happy'.
3
depends on your idealized conception of "competent"
It's more than we got from Bush Jr., more than we got from Clinton, more than we got from Bush Sr., more than we got from etc. etc. etc.
It's still not your conceptualized idea of good enough, but now nothing ever will be -- short of trotting out the Supremes in gags and leather, amirite???
It's more than we got from Bush Jr., more than we got from Clinton, more than we got from Bush Sr., more than we got from etc. etc. etc.
It's still not your conceptualized idea of good enough, but now nothing ever will be -- short of trotting out the Supremes in gags and leather, amirite???
4
It's ok Dan, it's only a memorandum and not an executive order, so it'll expire after he leaves office. That's long, lasting, far-reaching change right there.
5
Keep lying, Dan.
they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.
Keep lying, Dan.
6
Talk about opening up a can of worms!
Having worked with the census, I have some minor clue how freaking complicated the federal government makes things. "Same-sex partners" is just a can of worms, made worse by the lack of forthrightness on Obama's part.
Example: How does the federal government decide which partners are eligible? For heteros, the decision is easy: marriage = eligible. It would be easy to apply the same rule to homos (a state recognized civil union / domestic partnership could be made to fit). But what about fed workers in states without ssm or domestic partnerships? And how could the federal government recognize same sex marriage for some purposes (federal employee benefits) and not some others (taxes, tax-free inheritance, etc. ad nauseum)? Talk about making life more complicated than necessary.
So how to get out of this shitstorm? How about by being brave and just repealing the section of DOMA that forbids federal recognition of SSM. (We'll leave the other section for later.)
But, that would take courage and conviction, qualities sorely lacking in our current president.
Having worked with the census, I have some minor clue how freaking complicated the federal government makes things. "Same-sex partners" is just a can of worms, made worse by the lack of forthrightness on Obama's part.
Example: How does the federal government decide which partners are eligible? For heteros, the decision is easy: marriage = eligible. It would be easy to apply the same rule to homos (a state recognized civil union / domestic partnership could be made to fit). But what about fed workers in states without ssm or domestic partnerships? And how could the federal government recognize same sex marriage for some purposes (federal employee benefits) and not some others (taxes, tax-free inheritance, etc. ad nauseum)? Talk about making life more complicated than necessary.
So how to get out of this shitstorm? How about by being brave and just repealing the section of DOMA that forbids federal recognition of SSM. (We'll leave the other section for later.)
But, that would take courage and conviction, qualities sorely lacking in our current president.
7
You have a filthy mouth, spudbeach. That is the most disgusting thing I have seen on Slog for days.
"But, that would take courage and conviction, qualities sorely lacking in our current president. "
How dare you.
Dan: Do you see what all this hate speech does? I am shaking my head in disbelief.
"But, that would take courage and conviction, qualities sorely lacking in our current president. "
How dare you.
Dan: Do you see what all this hate speech does? I am shaking my head in disbelief.
8
Okay, as someone who isn't up on this issue, why would health benefits require legislation, while other benefits would not? The Times article doesn't address that at all.
10
at least with Bush we expected to be screwed and never trusted him to begin with so it never felt like betrayal.
12
No, you're not speechless, Dan, and I wish you were right now as more important (yes, MORE IMPORTANT) issues such as national health care reform, Iranian unrest, and crazy-ass nuclear North Korea should be on our President's mind. He won't issue an apology for the DOMA brief because it's not politically expedient to do so. Better to have his own troops riled up than the right, for now. I'll be angry if it happens again, but I firmly believe that word has come down to the locals that file such briefs that the times have changed since the last administration (when they were probably all hired).
13
@6 Providing benefits to same sex partners is not recognizing gay marriage, and plenty of companies and employers all over the country do it. It's hardly a can of worms.
And, Obama cannot just repeal a section of DOMA. Congress does that, the President signs it. Whether or not that actually happens...?
And, Obama cannot just repeal a section of DOMA. Congress does that, the President signs it. Whether or not that actually happens...?
15
Don't listen to assfaces like "hal." You and other media personalities (including Rachel Maddow, et al) need to be pressing this as hard as you can.
Tomorrow Obama will enact something that had *already been in the works* and was still being written this evening, just to be announced tomorrow (too late for the evening news cycle to pick it up, interestingly enough). This isn't even DECENT damage control, and I should know considering that I've had to do my share on behalf of my company.
Tomorrow Obama will enact something that had *already been in the works* and was still being written this evening, just to be announced tomorrow (too late for the evening news cycle to pick it up, interestingly enough). This isn't even DECENT damage control, and I should know considering that I've had to do my share on behalf of my company.
16
@12. What I'm really puzzled by is the administration's inaction on DADT, even given the laundry list of things you mention. An overwhelming majority of Americans support it (75%, including 64% of Republicans), so it doesn't seem like there's much political risk. While Congress must overturn the law, the President could stop enforcement right now with an executive order. And, how much time exactly would it take for some lackey to draft the order and him to sign it? I doubt it would be a distraction from all the issues you mentioned.
Plus, DADT is making us less safe, to borrow a Bush era talking point. Allowing gay Arabic translators to be dismissed right now, given the current geopolitical situation, is absolutely insane. So, why no action?
Plus, DADT is making us less safe, to borrow a Bush era talking point. Allowing gay Arabic translators to be dismissed right now, given the current geopolitical situation, is absolutely insane. So, why no action?
17
@16:
Polls when an issue isn't actually on the table aren't all that interesting. As soon as such a shift came into public awareness, advocacy groups would start their work, and opinions may well mirror 1993 (the last time it came up, right?). So no, not something that overshadows my "laundry list."
Polls when an issue isn't actually on the table aren't all that interesting. As soon as such a shift came into public awareness, advocacy groups would start their work, and opinions may well mirror 1993 (the last time it came up, right?). So no, not something that overshadows my "laundry list."
19
This whole "nothing matters except gay rights, fuck all other orders of business" attitude is getting kind of old now.
20
@17 - Not buying it. When the military was racially integrated (in the FIFTIES), public opinion polls were firmly AGAINST it. Truman did it anyway, and people accepted it or learned to live with it, and after a little while it became a non-issue for anyone but the bigots. There is absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't be a much smoother transition for dismantling DADT.
Julie is right - the lack of action on DADT makes no sense.
Julie is right - the lack of action on DADT makes no sense.
21
@17, okay, even if over 25% of the American people suddenly change their mind on DADT (which seems unlikely), how much time exactly would an executive order by Obama take? Would half a day of a lackey's time be too distracting for the administration? Good people, people our military needs right now, are being dismissed. Obama could stop it with almost zero investment of time/resources, but he doesn't.
23
But wait... isn't this discrimination... against straights?! Now the unmarried partners of gay employees are eligible for benefits, while the unmarried partners of straight employees are not. Reverse discrimination!
24
Gotta love all these arguments about how powerless Obama is to do anything substantive. Apparently, the only thing he has enough power to do is to defend bigoted laws like DOMA in federal court.
25
Dan, it's rare that I agree with you, and I'm sad it's over something like this. After the hard work I watched many of my gay friends put into Obama's campaign, I know this has to feel like betrayal. Keep holding this administration's feet to the fire.
27
BENEFITS!*
*Benefits not included. Not valid with any other offer. Offer expires January 2012. Limit one per household. Local and federal taxes may apply.
*Benefits not included. Not valid with any other offer. Offer expires January 2012. Limit one per household. Local and federal taxes may apply.
29
@20:
The racial integration comparison is not valid. Throughout the world, racial barriers began dropping more than 100 years before we integrated our armed forces (officially - although it had happened, as Hollywood will be happy to show you multiple movies about, long before). You can't say the same about gay rights. I'm not justifying that kind of timeline, but it's also not the same. At all.
The racial integration comparison is not valid. Throughout the world, racial barriers began dropping more than 100 years before we integrated our armed forces (officially - although it had happened, as Hollywood will be happy to show you multiple movies about, long before). You can't say the same about gay rights. I'm not justifying that kind of timeline, but it's also not the same. At all.
30
I hear the Green Party makes great tacos. They should host their own fundraiser the same night as the DNC's.
31
Echoing @6, it's so true that figuring out the best method to systematically and institutionally treat a group of people as lesser makes life difficult for everyone. So many issues come up! Obama is finding out what a hassle gays are, always with the wanting wanting wanting! Hey gays, a little more accessorizing, a little less expecting to be treated like a fully formed human, thanks.
32
@21:
We aren't going to pull one over on these people - whether it's discussing or acting, as soon as this is in the hands of FOX News, it's DOA. Maybe it lasts through an Obama administration, but it could also be the issue that is pressed too early and forces Obama to the right (see Clinton, William J.). I'm not against repealing DADT, but also want to pick my fights.
We aren't going to pull one over on these people - whether it's discussing or acting, as soon as this is in the hands of FOX News, it's DOA. Maybe it lasts through an Obama administration, but it could also be the issue that is pressed too early and forces Obama to the right (see Clinton, William J.). I'm not against repealing DADT, but also want to pick my fights.
33
Well, I guess it's time to pack up and go home. Hasn't fixed the economy yet? Enacted more banking regulation? Ended the recession? Reduced the budget deficit? Immigration reform? Healthcare reform? The Iraq war? The Afghanistan war? Dealt with China yet? North Korea? Pakistan? Solve our energy problems? Bettered education? Too late. IT CAN NEVER BE DONE. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE KING OBAMA IGNORE "REALITY" AND "CONGRESS" AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTS?!?!
35
I know that the internet is a race and I'm loosing it. Sorry if this is old news, but according to the Advocate, Majority Leader Reid has issued a clarification of his comments made on Monday about DADT. That there is no bill at this time, but there are a number of senators working on it.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti…
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti…
36
How the fuck can you bitch about this being a memorandum and not law, thus not being permanent, and also bitch he's not giving out waivers for people being fired under DADT, thus not being permanent?
For fucks sake, stop acting like the silly Tea-Baggers and actually learn how government functions without hyperventilating.
For fucks sake, stop acting like the silly Tea-Baggers and actually learn how government functions without hyperventilating.
37
@20
Truman integrated the military three years into his term, not six months, and it was a big deal. The Armed forces did not immediately integrate either, but were pushed by the Korean war. Non-combat areas were still segregated. Moreover, segregation still existed in the outside world and there was still discrimination IN the military after Truman's order. Point being, an executive order for DADT is not a slam dunk that everyone portrays it as, and this rosy picture of post interegration love and flowers is exaggerated.
Truman integrated the military three years into his term, not six months, and it was a big deal. The Armed forces did not immediately integrate either, but were pushed by the Korean war. Non-combat areas were still segregated. Moreover, segregation still existed in the outside world and there was still discrimination IN the military after Truman's order. Point being, an executive order for DADT is not a slam dunk that everyone portrays it as, and this rosy picture of post interegration love and flowers is exaggerated.
38
Silence got us nothing, and a little bigotry on top.
Pissing and moaning over the internet got us a broken band-aid.
Now what, after this? Bitch a little more over what Obama gave us, and then go back to silence?
Pissing and moaning over the internet got us a broken band-aid.
Now what, after this? Bitch a little more over what Obama gave us, and then go back to silence?
39
Speaking of the Census, someone should ask the Obama Administration if they still plan to count legally married same-sex couples as unmarried single residents.
(And, searching, it looks like the new Congressman from Illinois is: see today's HuffPost.)
(And, searching, it looks like the new Congressman from Illinois is: see today's HuffPost.)
40
@20
Sorry, not buying it.
There were no laws passed by the congress banning racial integration of the armed forces. Obama isn't KOTUS and actually has to deal with existing law.
Sorry, not buying it.
There were no laws passed by the congress banning racial integration of the armed forces. Obama isn't KOTUS and actually has to deal with existing law.
41
I unsubscribed my Obama spam today.
How many volunteers do we have so far to get arrested at teh WH?
How many volunteers do we have so far to get arrested at teh WH?
42
Fucking hell, I've missed having a nation of laws for those 8 years and I'm pissed off that you just want to throw that all away now, and because I actually like a president who doesn't ignore the law I'm an "Obamapologist"?
I no longer give a shit at all about what Obama does for gay rights. As far as I'm concerned he should issue a presidential memorandum telling you to fuck off.
I no longer give a shit at all about what Obama does for gay rights. As far as I'm concerned he should issue a presidential memorandum telling you to fuck off.
43
Maybe the extra cost of extending those health care benefits complicates the ongoing negotiations over the cost of a public health care option and that's why they don't want to talk about it right now, with those negotiations at a very delicate stage and passage not at all certain.
45
@36 – Um, okay, because we need the people who are being dismissed under DADT? Like, right now? So, a good stopgap measure until Congress acts on DADT would be to issue a temporary order suspending enforcement? And then Congress can overturn the law?
And @32. I seriously don’t see the issue with an executive order here. Why the fuck cares what Fox News thinks in this instance? If/when, Obama decides to work with Congress on it, then he’ll be spending political capital and could possibly run into the same issues as Clinton (though, hello, it’s been 16 years, and I’m pretty sure public sentiment on teh gays has swayed significantly in that time. As evidenced by the polls I cited.).
But, what is the downside of an executive order suspending enforcement? We get the people we need remaining in the military right now, and we get time so that the top brass can say after a period of time that it’s not affecting morale, operations, etc. Thus, easier to get the law overturned in Congress.
Honestly, I’d love the law to go away, but I’d be comfortable if that happened in 2-3 years, and in the meantime, gay soldiers were able to keep their fucking jobs and we, as a country, weren’t wasting resources on soldiers (that we need... right now) who we train and then dismiss.
And @32. I seriously don’t see the issue with an executive order here. Why the fuck cares what Fox News thinks in this instance? If/when, Obama decides to work with Congress on it, then he’ll be spending political capital and could possibly run into the same issues as Clinton (though, hello, it’s been 16 years, and I’m pretty sure public sentiment on teh gays has swayed significantly in that time. As evidenced by the polls I cited.).
But, what is the downside of an executive order suspending enforcement? We get the people we need remaining in the military right now, and we get time so that the top brass can say after a period of time that it’s not affecting morale, operations, etc. Thus, easier to get the law overturned in Congress.
Honestly, I’d love the law to go away, but I’d be comfortable if that happened in 2-3 years, and in the meantime, gay soldiers were able to keep their fucking jobs and we, as a country, weren’t wasting resources on soldiers (that we need... right now) who we train and then dismiss.
46
Here's the little I know about racial desegregation in the army.
"On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.
Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s African-American citizens.
The true fulfillment of the entire scope of Executive Order 9981—equality of treatment and opportunity—actually required an additional change in Defense Department policy. This occurred with the publication of Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 on 26 July 1963, 15 years to the day after Truman signed the original order. This major about-face in policy issued by Secretary of Defense Robert J. McNamara expanded the military’s responsibility to include the elimination of off-base discrimination detrimental to the military effectiveness of black servicemen."
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/int…
"On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.
Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s African-American citizens.
The true fulfillment of the entire scope of Executive Order 9981—equality of treatment and opportunity—actually required an additional change in Defense Department policy. This occurred with the publication of Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 on 26 July 1963, 15 years to the day after Truman signed the original order. This major about-face in policy issued by Secretary of Defense Robert J. McNamara expanded the military’s responsibility to include the elimination of off-base discrimination detrimental to the military effectiveness of black servicemen."
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/int…
47
Doctor Professor,
Are you okay? Are you just blowing off steam, because that's cool (at least to me it is).
Are you okay? Are you just blowing off steam, because that's cool (at least to me it is).
48
If gay furor tanks other progressive causes (like health care reform), I'm all for it. It's one thing to have the GOP screw you over, but when it's your supposed allies? Fuck 'em.
49
@45:
Part of my point was that your polls are testing an issue that hasn't been at the forefront of people's minds (other than "teh gays") for 16 years. Irrelevant. And unlike your Koffee Klatch down in Eugene, much of America DOES care what FOX News tells them is important. You don't see the issue because honestly, you aren't near enough to the issue (closed-minded people) to understand.
As for providing needed bodies for war, I'm OK with preventing grunts, gay or straight, from dying.
Part of my point was that your polls are testing an issue that hasn't been at the forefront of people's minds (other than "teh gays") for 16 years. Irrelevant. And unlike your Koffee Klatch down in Eugene, much of America DOES care what FOX News tells them is important. You don't see the issue because honestly, you aren't near enough to the issue (closed-minded people) to understand.
As for providing needed bodies for war, I'm OK with preventing grunts, gay or straight, from dying.
50
@47
I think I am, which I get is a little silly to do when it seems like a lot of Slog might be blowing off steam, but I think they're doing it over the wrong issues. Dan is trying to act like the law shouldn't apply to Obama with issues like DOMA and DADT, and is taking it all way to personal, which to an extent is understandable considering these issues literally affect his life and his family. But he's still taking it way to far and is acting like Obama is plotting against Dan personally, when really Obama is just constrained by the forces of an institution that he has little control over.
I think I am, which I get is a little silly to do when it seems like a lot of Slog might be blowing off steam, but I think they're doing it over the wrong issues. Dan is trying to act like the law shouldn't apply to Obama with issues like DOMA and DADT, and is taking it all way to personal, which to an extent is understandable considering these issues literally affect his life and his family. But he's still taking it way to far and is acting like Obama is plotting against Dan personally, when really Obama is just constrained by the forces of an institution that he has little control over.
52
@49. Are you okay with over 50 gay Arabic translators being dismissed? I mean, I can't think of any reason why we might need those people, right?
And my point is, really, even if Fox news comes out against it, and 25% of the people change their minds (which, again, I highly doubt is going to happen -- I'm originally from a small town in the Midwest, so I know all about close-minded people)... even if that happens, what is the downside with Obama issuing an executive order? How will the fact that people disapprove of it matter? He can still do it, we as a country can still reap the benefits right now, and it buys Congress time and cover to act on it some time before his first term is over.
And my point is, really, even if Fox news comes out against it, and 25% of the people change their minds (which, again, I highly doubt is going to happen -- I'm originally from a small town in the Midwest, so I know all about close-minded people)... even if that happens, what is the downside with Obama issuing an executive order? How will the fact that people disapprove of it matter? He can still do it, we as a country can still reap the benefits right now, and it buys Congress time and cover to act on it some time before his first term is over.
54
""Guess what? It's not an executive order, it's just a "presidential memorandum," which means this directive expires when Obama leaves office"
Is that actually true? I keep reading they don't expire and are like executive orders, but considered "less prestigious?"
Is that actually true? I keep reading they don't expire and are like executive orders, but considered "less prestigious?"
55
@52:
I'm going to wait for you to finish school before answering your question about how public opinion matters.
I'm going to wait for you to finish school before answering your question about how public opinion matters.
57
@52
An executive order isn't permanent and removes any need for congress to officially repeal the law so that the next time a Republican is elected it will likely just go away again(think of the Mexico City policy). This is basically what Dan is now complaining about with the memorandum and it not being permanent, he's holding a double standard that Obama should do whatever makes Dan most satisfied regardless of the law.
An executive order isn't permanent and removes any need for congress to officially repeal the law so that the next time a Republican is elected it will likely just go away again(think of the Mexico City policy). This is basically what Dan is now complaining about with the memorandum and it not being permanent, he's holding a double standard that Obama should do whatever makes Dan most satisfied regardless of the law.
58
The excuse that its too politically difficult is bullshit. You know what's a lot more politically difficult? Fixing health care. And enacting meaningful financial regulations, and combating climate change. If Obama can't take on the gay rights issue then I am looking forward to the "middle ground solutions" he's going to offer on other issues. The middle ground being right smack in between interest groups and their bloated congressional patrons.
59
@58:
Saying that other things are more or less politically difficult doesn't change the fact that they have a higher priority for our country than your pet issue. I wish that Obama would declare my birthday "No Discrimination Against People with Small Dicks Day," which is incredibly easy, but it's not going to happen because there are far more difficult and important things on which to spend political capital.
Saying that other things are more or less politically difficult doesn't change the fact that they have a higher priority for our country than your pet issue. I wish that Obama would declare my birthday "No Discrimination Against People with Small Dicks Day," which is incredibly easy, but it's not going to happen because there are far more difficult and important things on which to spend political capital.
60
@55. So, we should never do anything that the majority of American people don't support (I'm not going to go into the slavery argument, really, I'm not)?
Plus, we're only talking abouthypothetical disapproval here because 75% of people currently are absolutely fine with gays in the military. Jesus.
Plus, we're only talking abouthypothetical disapproval here because 75% of people currently are absolutely fine with gays in the military. Jesus.
61
@60:
If that were the case, and it were spread in ways meaningful to electoral politics, the Congress would repeal DADT tomorrow. If they do, great. But don't ask Obama to do it on the same basis - his considerations are different. Allah.
If that were the case, and it were spread in ways meaningful to electoral politics, the Congress would repeal DADT tomorrow. If they do, great. But don't ask Obama to do it on the same basis - his considerations are different. Allah.
62
@50:
As a long time Slog/Savage fan, I have to agree - Dan's coverage has been disappointing. Lot's of self-righteousness, lot's of anger, lot's ignorance about how government works, lot's of unfair assumptions about the administration's motives, and even some outright misinformation (e.g. attributing the wording of the DOMA defense to Obama himself).
Very little if any insight or intelligence.
It's a fact that our ability to reason drops when we're flooded with anger. We oversimplify, we react defensively, our perspective narrows, we say stupid shit. It's kind of like being drunk. There are thousands of angry (and drunk) comments on Slog to prove this point.
But Dan is a professional writer and has been for years. By now, his game should have evolved beyond the diatribe. There is a lot to write about here, but instead he seems content simply to rant like so many other media boneheads. Bummer.
As a long time Slog/Savage fan, I have to agree - Dan's coverage has been disappointing. Lot's of self-righteousness, lot's of anger, lot's ignorance about how government works, lot's of unfair assumptions about the administration's motives, and even some outright misinformation (e.g. attributing the wording of the DOMA defense to Obama himself).
Very little if any insight or intelligence.
It's a fact that our ability to reason drops when we're flooded with anger. We oversimplify, we react defensively, our perspective narrows, we say stupid shit. It's kind of like being drunk. There are thousands of angry (and drunk) comments on Slog to prove this point.
But Dan is a professional writer and has been for years. By now, his game should have evolved beyond the diatribe. There is a lot to write about here, but instead he seems content simply to rant like so many other media boneheads. Bummer.
63
@57. No, it doesn't remove any need for Congress to repeal the law. Because, as you said, an executive order isn't permanent, it can be overturned by subsequent presidents. If Congress believes that the right thing to do is to allow gays in the military permanently, then they should overturn the law. And if they have 2 years of evidence that gays in the military do not destroy morale, then it will be that much easier for them to do it.
So, for DADT, a temporary solution is acceptable, maybe even ideal from a "getting it done politically" standpoint. For federal benefits, I'm not 100% clear on the difference between a "presidential memorandum" and an "executive order." But if, as is being suggested, the memorandum expires at the end of his term, then that is certainly less desirable than an order that would stay in place until overturned.
So, for DADT, a temporary solution is acceptable, maybe even ideal from a "getting it done politically" standpoint. For federal benefits, I'm not 100% clear on the difference between a "presidential memorandum" and an "executive order." But if, as is being suggested, the memorandum expires at the end of his term, then that is certainly less desirable than an order that would stay in place until overturned.
64
2005 Boston Globe poll -- 79% of Americans support gays in military
2006 Zogby poll -- 73% of military members are comfortable serving with gays and lesbians.
2007 CNN poll -- 79% support for repealing DADT
Public opinion overwhelmingly supports the repeal. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that Congress will then repeal it. If these people support the repeal, but are not actively campaigning against it (which, it's likely they are not), then why would Congress act? Your logic is ridiculous (if the people were for it, Congress would act, so the people must not be for it even though all of the polls say they are?).
2006 Zogby poll -- 73% of military members are comfortable serving with gays and lesbians.
2007 CNN poll -- 79% support for repealing DADT
Public opinion overwhelmingly supports the repeal. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that Congress will then repeal it. If these people support the repeal, but are not actively campaigning against it (which, it's likely they are not), then why would Congress act? Your logic is ridiculous (if the people were for it, Congress would act, so the people must not be for it even though all of the polls say they are?).
65
It seems like, if Obama is so busy and has only so much political capital to risk, he should just work to repeal DOMA and DADT and be done with it. He seems to be losing a lot more supporters, and spending a lot more effort justifying his silence (or worse) on these issues, than if he'd just work for gay rights like he said he would. These issues aren't going to go away until gays achieve full equality, so by not touching these issues, he's keeping them on the table as issues.
An executive order to suspend DADT, while it wouldn't be permanent, would be quick and effective; it would at least put a stop to the dismissal of gay soldiers while congress takes its sweet time getting up off its ass on the issue. It would also give people time to see that having out soldiers in the military really doesn't result in chaos (because it won't), so there will be more public support for a full permanent repeal of DADT. I think we can all agree that, while not a member of the legislative branch, the President does have some power of persuasion. If he shows at least some signs of a plan to do something about DADT, maybe congress would be more motivated to get on board as well.
And DOMA, well, sure Obama can't just will it away. But he can urge the legislative branch to repeal it and voice his intentions to sign a repeal if they pass one. Or at least fire the Bushy holdover that wrote it, or voice his disagreement with the brief and his disgust that it has been filed in the name of his administration. By not doing so, he's endorsing DOMA.
Before, my argument was that expecting Obama to do something doesn't mean that we expect him to do everything. Now that he's allowing his underlings to waste their time defending DOMA, I think even those who argued that he was "too busy" before have to admit that something's not right here. And this empty, hurried gesture where he gives a few of the more useless federal benefits to the partners of gay federal employees isn't enough to win my trust.
So once again (and again): it's not that we expect Obama to put gays at the very tippy-tip-top of his agenda list and fix every gay problem by tomorrow. It's that there's some sort of a HAPPY MEDIUM between that and his current strategy of flipping the gay community a not-so-subtle finger, and we wish that he'd move somewhere closer to that medium. Is that really so unreasonable?
Do you know what's more unreasonable and unrealistic than expecting the President to address gay rights while he has these other issues to face? Expecting us to wait patiently until the international situation and the economy have been "fixed" once and for all before we dare to trouble him with civil rights. Would anyone like to tell me when was the last time that there were no international or economic concerns facing our country (or any country)? Has any major progress in civil rights EVER been made at a time when there weren't other, "more important" issues at hand?
More...
An executive order to suspend DADT, while it wouldn't be permanent, would be quick and effective; it would at least put a stop to the dismissal of gay soldiers while congress takes its sweet time getting up off its ass on the issue. It would also give people time to see that having out soldiers in the military really doesn't result in chaos (because it won't), so there will be more public support for a full permanent repeal of DADT. I think we can all agree that, while not a member of the legislative branch, the President does have some power of persuasion. If he shows at least some signs of a plan to do something about DADT, maybe congress would be more motivated to get on board as well.
And DOMA, well, sure Obama can't just will it away. But he can urge the legislative branch to repeal it and voice his intentions to sign a repeal if they pass one. Or at least fire the Bushy holdover that wrote it, or voice his disagreement with the brief and his disgust that it has been filed in the name of his administration. By not doing so, he's endorsing DOMA.
Before, my argument was that expecting Obama to do something doesn't mean that we expect him to do everything. Now that he's allowing his underlings to waste their time defending DOMA, I think even those who argued that he was "too busy" before have to admit that something's not right here. And this empty, hurried gesture where he gives a few of the more useless federal benefits to the partners of gay federal employees isn't enough to win my trust.
So once again (and again): it's not that we expect Obama to put gays at the very tippy-tip-top of his agenda list and fix every gay problem by tomorrow. It's that there's some sort of a HAPPY MEDIUM between that and his current strategy of flipping the gay community a not-so-subtle finger, and we wish that he'd move somewhere closer to that medium. Is that really so unreasonable?
Do you know what's more unreasonable and unrealistic than expecting the President to address gay rights while he has these other issues to face? Expecting us to wait patiently until the international situation and the economy have been "fixed" once and for all before we dare to trouble him with civil rights. Would anyone like to tell me when was the last time that there were no international or economic concerns facing our country (or any country)? Has any major progress in civil rights EVER been made at a time when there weren't other, "more important" issues at hand?
66
Thanks for your comments, Dan. Your words tap the outrage & frustration that I, and probably hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people feel all over this country. Keep up the good work. With flaming advocacy like yours, we can't lose. Not this time.
67
@64:
Teh polls are not the proper barometer for Obama. He was elected as a "big table" uniter - much as Bush II was in 2000. There is no big table on this issue, there is latent polling. Show me post-presentation polling, and I will join you. Show me "sleeping issue" polls, and I will continue to call your BS.
Teh polls are not the proper barometer for Obama. He was elected as a "big table" uniter - much as Bush II was in 2000. There is no big table on this issue, there is latent polling. Show me post-presentation polling, and I will join you. Show me "sleeping issue" polls, and I will continue to call your BS.
68
@64 Part Deux:
If the overwhelming opinion were in favor, yes, it would be repealed by Congress - our representatives. So if your polls are accurate, it will be gone tomorrow. Which I hope it is.
If the overwhelming opinion were in favor, yes, it would be repealed by Congress - our representatives. So if your polls are accurate, it will be gone tomorrow. Which I hope it is.
69
@64
Take it up with congress. The problem is that in the senate, there are 22 Democrats who represent over 50% of the population. This means that just on a whole, the senate is an extremely conservative body relative to the country at large, which means that even though a DADT repeal has wide support it doesn't mean that there's wide support in the senate. It's why other issues, like healthcare reform and immigration reform also have pretty high public support for Obama's plans and yet are going to be extremely difficult to pass.
Take it up with congress. The problem is that in the senate, there are 22 Democrats who represent over 50% of the population. This means that just on a whole, the senate is an extremely conservative body relative to the country at large, which means that even though a DADT repeal has wide support it doesn't mean that there's wide support in the senate. It's why other issues, like healthcare reform and immigration reform also have pretty high public support for Obama's plans and yet are going to be extremely difficult to pass.
70
Dan probably masturbates whilst reading the comments on his blog. What a self-absorbed douche. Pay more attention to the 'sanctity' of your open relationship, hypocrite.
71
I am not a political science expert per se. I do hold a masters degree in the subject, so I do know a bit more than the average joe. (the average joe in the U.S. being unable to locate the state of Maine on a map). I teach lower level polictical science classes to undergrads as an adjunct professor. I would like to suggest that it is many of you and not Mr. Savage who might benefit from taking a few classes of this nature. Remember that there is a VAST difference between the law and government and politics, not to mention political reality. Mr. Savage is largely talking about politics and political manuvers and not the legislative process (see 'how a bill becomes a law'). Politicians make promises, the only way to make them honor the promises is to force their hands. And not for nothing, but I am capable of thinking about this issue, north korea, and healtcare all at the same time without blood pouring from my ears... We are really suposed to expect less from the President of the United States?
72
Dan's relationship has no "sanctity", 70, not that anybody's does.
Yeah he and his partner have an open relationship with multiple sexual partners, I've seen it referenced here.
What is Dan fighting for, anyway?
Yeah he and his partner have an open relationship with multiple sexual partners, I've seen it referenced here.
What is Dan fighting for, anyway?
73
@71:
Think about it, yes. Spend your capital on it, up to Obama, and think for a second about the many constituencies involved. I'm OK with the answer being "working on it at an admittedly slow pace, and keep your panties from getting in a bunch."
Think about it, yes. Spend your capital on it, up to Obama, and think for a second about the many constituencies involved. I'm OK with the answer being "working on it at an admittedly slow pace, and keep your panties from getting in a bunch."
74
@71 Jesus Christ I hope that they don't pay you to teach. When you talk about purely LEGAL issues like DOMA and DADT, then you have to support them with LEGAL arguments. Saber rattling to the base is all well and good, but it don't mean shit if you can't get any recognized rights. It takes Lawyers to get that done, not drama queen bloggers.
75
The always excellent Alex Blaze at bilerico:
"I think a lot of people thought this would be much easier than it's turning out to be. Maybe for good reason. The majority of people angry now are white, and white American's knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is generally drawn from high school American history, where we learn that Rosa Parks was a lady who got tired of racism, so the movement started, African Americans marched for several years, a few laws were passed, and then everything was fine."
"I think a lot of people thought this would be much easier than it's turning out to be. Maybe for good reason. The majority of people angry now are white, and white American's knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is generally drawn from high school American history, where we learn that Rosa Parks was a lady who got tired of racism, so the movement started, African Americans marched for several years, a few laws were passed, and then everything was fine."
76
"These discussions of the Boies and Olson case have me thinking that some of these people thought that Loving vs. VA was just a case that appeared out of nowhere, made it to the supreme court, and then convinced the justices there that the plaintiffs were being denied their rights. But that's not the way it went down. Many states had to first overturn their bans on interracial marriage. The case was argued in front of two left-leaning courts (ours now can't legitimately be called lefty) because it failed the first time. That and the fact that African Americans were already a suspect class (LGBT people aren't) all helped move things along. Comparing the Boies and Olson case to Loving only betrays a lack of understanding of the circumstances of that case."
77
Dan don't you and your boyfriend have an "open" relationship...?
Why is this whole marriage thing so important to you if you don't believe in monogamy or, like, a special and protected bond between you and another?
I mean, if you fuck other guys, you cant possibly be all offended that you can't personally be married to a single one.
It just doesn't add up.
Why is this whole marriage thing so important to you if you don't believe in monogamy or, like, a special and protected bond between you and another?
I mean, if you fuck other guys, you cant possibly be all offended that you can't personally be married to a single one.
It just doesn't add up.
78
@76:
Oh dear. Teh gays are going to be all up on your ass. We don't care about circumstance, only privilege.
Oh dear. Teh gays are going to be all up on your ass. We don't care about circumstance, only privilege.
79
To those of you who think this is a back-burner issue, would you feel the same way were we still denying the women the right to vote? Would Climate Change trump that? Would healthcare reform trump school integration? Would it be more important to fix the economy or to allow Rosa Parks to sit anywhere she damn well pleases when she boards a bus?
For me? If my brothers and sisters are not considered full and equal partners in our communities, you can take all of your tax breaks and environmental issues and war mongering and go fuck yourself. There seems to be this notion that equality for gays and lesbians is a designer issue that's only cool to talk about at cocktail parties--it's not a real issue--I mean, not like those kids who are fighting for their rights in Iran--gays are just decorations here.
Bullshit. Why AREN'T WE MARCHING IN THE STREETS like the kids in Iran?
Seriously...appeasing insurance companies to fix healthcare trumps the basic personal rights of gays to choose to whom they'd like to be legally wed? If that's the Universe you live in, then fuck you too.
For me? If my brothers and sisters are not considered full and equal partners in our communities, you can take all of your tax breaks and environmental issues and war mongering and go fuck yourself. There seems to be this notion that equality for gays and lesbians is a designer issue that's only cool to talk about at cocktail parties--it's not a real issue--I mean, not like those kids who are fighting for their rights in Iran--gays are just decorations here.
Bullshit. Why AREN'T WE MARCHING IN THE STREETS like the kids in Iran?
Seriously...appeasing insurance companies to fix healthcare trumps the basic personal rights of gays to choose to whom they'd like to be legally wed? If that's the Universe you live in, then fuck you too.
80
Timothy: when making headway on each issue you list INCLUDING gay rights is jeopardized by a skipping 2 steps ahead and falling 20 back (losing the House, Senate, and Presidency) for years, YES. Fuck you too.
81
All the more reason it's time for universal coverage – tall, short, thin, thick, blue, yellow, green, etc. - ASAP
82
Wow. leave it to Democrats to cut off their nose to spite their face.
to #1-80:
Circular firing squad is circular firing squad.
to #1-80:
Circular firing squad is circular firing squad.
83
@79:
As soon as your hipster ass is in the same danger and fighting for the same freedoms as the "kids in Iran" I will take you seriously.
As soon as your hipster ass is in the same danger and fighting for the same freedoms as the "kids in Iran" I will take you seriously.
84
Doctor Professor and Yo.
Your arguments are pathetic and useless. Civil rights are just as important as healthcare, the economy, crazy rouge nations, and whatever the fuck else you can come up with to justify your shit-stain of an opinion. Why, you ask? because civil rights affect the ability of people to lead decent, dignified lives. If YOU couldn't get married to the person you loved, if YOU got kicked out of the military because of what you are, DADT and DOMA would be the only thing you cared about.
Dan Savage and the other commenters on this blog are not being unreasonable. Obama promised the gays that he would repeal DADT and DOMA, and he didn't qualify that statement by saying he would have to cure all the world's problems first. Healthcare, the economy, and national security are ALWAYS going to be issues; you're asking the gays to wait in a line that's never going to get any shorter.
Maybe you're right, and President Obama can do nothing without congress on his side. That's fine, the gay community was never expecting a quick reversal; but when that brief hit the press people like Dan freaked because they realized Obama has no intention of fulfilling his campaign promises, not even if he spends the next 100 years in office!
Your arguments are pathetic and useless. Civil rights are just as important as healthcare, the economy, crazy rouge nations, and whatever the fuck else you can come up with to justify your shit-stain of an opinion. Why, you ask? because civil rights affect the ability of people to lead decent, dignified lives. If YOU couldn't get married to the person you loved, if YOU got kicked out of the military because of what you are, DADT and DOMA would be the only thing you cared about.
Dan Savage and the other commenters on this blog are not being unreasonable. Obama promised the gays that he would repeal DADT and DOMA, and he didn't qualify that statement by saying he would have to cure all the world's problems first. Healthcare, the economy, and national security are ALWAYS going to be issues; you're asking the gays to wait in a line that's never going to get any shorter.
Maybe you're right, and President Obama can do nothing without congress on his side. That's fine, the gay community was never expecting a quick reversal; but when that brief hit the press people like Dan freaked because they realized Obama has no intention of fulfilling his campaign promises, not even if he spends the next 100 years in office!
85
@84:
Of course he didn't promise to cure the world's problems first, but that doesn't eliminate the need to address them. And no, I have no problem asking teh gays to wait in line just like EVERYBODY ELSE.
Of course he didn't promise to cure the world's problems first, but that doesn't eliminate the need to address them. And no, I have no problem asking teh gays to wait in line just like EVERYBODY ELSE.
86
I can't wait till Dan bumps/reposts this to showcase how many comments and hits it got!!!
Us: give us rights, please
Dan: Give me money, please! CHA-CHING!!!! NEW DRAMA! YESSSSSSSSSSS
Us: give us rights, please
Dan: Give me money, please! CHA-CHING!!!! NEW DRAMA! YESSSSSSSSSSS
88
@84:
Really? Your right to fuck, to marry, to die with whomever you please is more important than any other right? Um, hell no.
Really? Your right to fuck, to marry, to die with whomever you please is more important than any other right? Um, hell no.
90
@80 Keyboard Gat...your comments @77 reveal your stunning lack of skills in critical analysis. So, your opinions on the manner in which basic human and civil rights should and will move forward as though it's all aligned through some grand teleological plan is laughable. The fight for rights is now and always has been messy.
While there was a time when conservative pacing of this issue made strategic sense, we have entered a whole new era more akin to a model of progression like Kuhn's analysis of scientific revolution: the damn finally gives way in rapid demise...it is not dismantled one stone at a time to the last stone.
As we get nearer the end of this scourge of discrimination, the urgency increases, and the decision to NOT fight tooth and nail for it will be measured as evil.
While there was a time when conservative pacing of this issue made strategic sense, we have entered a whole new era more akin to a model of progression like Kuhn's analysis of scientific revolution: the damn finally gives way in rapid demise...it is not dismantled one stone at a time to the last stone.
As we get nearer the end of this scourge of discrimination, the urgency increases, and the decision to NOT fight tooth and nail for it will be measured as evil.
91
@90:
You need psychological help for your grandiose fantasies. The level of discrimination involved with this issue pales in comparison with the battles our forebears fought.
You need psychological help for your grandiose fantasies. The level of discrimination involved with this issue pales in comparison with the battles our forebears fought.
93
@88 Yo...name a right that trumps those things? Perhaps the right to breathe? To eat? To sleep? But, once we exhaust Maslow's primary needs, the right to choose your family and sex partners is pretty fucking important.
In fact, if we denied this right to straight people, I'm guessing you'd agree that it's pretty fucking important.
In fact, if we denied this right to straight people, I'm guessing you'd agree that it's pretty fucking important.
95
@90...give me an example. And, by doing so, you'll merely confirm your homophobia. I mean, women's rights are more important than african american rights which are more important than gay rights.
Amirite?
Amirite?
97
@95:
I'll go ahead and say it. It's easier to discriminate against African Americans and women because I can easily tell them apart from white males. Gays, not so easy. So no, your dilemma does not compare.
I'll go ahead and say it. It's easier to discriminate against African Americans and women because I can easily tell them apart from white males. Gays, not so easy. So no, your dilemma does not compare.
98
@93...I agree they're all big...but that's not what you said. You said they were more important. And, speech, privacy and self-determination are absolutely at play in fighting for your right to fuck and marry whomever you choose. These notions are not some appendage to rights, they are core, fundamental rights, none of which are more important than the other. They are all co-equal.
Basic and fundamental rights don't exist on a hierarchy. They exist, period.
Basic and fundamental rights don't exist on a hierarchy. They exist, period.
99
Dan Savage: You are just a liar plain and simple. See, that is an example of a TRUE fucking headline. The way you label Obama is just wrong. Get some fucking integrity.
100
@98:
You're not talking about basic and fundamental rights, at least not in this country. And while the rights I mentioned are related, they aren't entirely the same.
You're not talking about basic and fundamental rights, at least not in this country. And while the rights I mentioned are related, they aren't entirely the same.
101
I dare you both to do a double shot of Jagermeister and play spin the bottle.
The sexual tension is off the charts – get a room already and have some good ole fashioned angry sex and get it over with.
The sexual tension is off the charts – get a room already and have some good ole fashioned angry sex and get it over with.
102
Timothy, I return you to the absurdity of comparing this issue to those that inspire Iranians to march in the streets. Srsly WTF.
103
@97 Yo...now you're just being silly.
A gay man denied his right to make medical decisions with and for his partner has been equally discriminated against compared to a black man denied the same rights relative to his white wife.
Discrimination happens to individuals, one at a time. Each time it happens it is morally evil.
A gay man denied his right to make medical decisions with and for his partner has been equally discriminated against compared to a black man denied the same rights relative to his white wife.
Discrimination happens to individuals, one at a time. Each time it happens it is morally evil.
105
Don't know if anyone will read a comment so far down the page, but CNN.com's story on this memorandum claims that it will grant health care benefits. Now is probably the time to spam their "error correction" site and ask them to fix the error.
The "contact us" link is
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom/
(choose the link for "Editorial")
And since it will ask you the link for the article, that is:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/o…
The "contact us" link is
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom/
(choose the link for "Editorial")
And since it will ask you the link for the article, that is:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/o…
106
Yo: I don't know whether or not you read newspapers or watch TV, but if you did, you'd know that Don't Ask Don't Tell has been constantly in the news since the US went to war in 2002. There has been a continuous and public debate about whether or not it's a good idea to fire otherwise capable soldiers during wartime, culminating in Congressional hearings last year. The plain fact is that over 70% of Americans, and over 90% of Americans aged 18-35 (you know, people of recruitment age), want DADT repealed.
107
I was in the Infantry from '00 to '04. I served with gay people. It's not an issue.
Keeping the policy in place actively harms our national security (c.f. translators, fighter pilots and other mission critical troops). Repeal will not hurt recruitment, nor will it cause discipline problems (DADT is itself an administrative hassle for commanders). And repeal has broad popular support.
So let Fox News bray about it. They will only marginalize themselves further.
Keeping the policy in place actively harms our national security (c.f. translators, fighter pilots and other mission critical troops). Repeal will not hurt recruitment, nor will it cause discipline problems (DADT is itself an administrative hassle for commanders). And repeal has broad popular support.
So let Fox News bray about it. They will only marginalize themselves further.
108
The legislation required to give us health insurance and other benefits has already been introduced in both the House and the Senate. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?…
I really don't know why Obama's signing anything at this point if it doesn't give us what the bill would give. My partner already has the right to inherit my thrift savings plan, final paycheck, life insurance, and get a survivor annuity if I die after I retire. The only thing we really need for her is health insurance. (since for now social security is not an option, since it would have to be for everyone, not just feds)
I really don't know why Obama's signing anything at this point if it doesn't give us what the bill would give. My partner already has the right to inherit my thrift savings plan, final paycheck, life insurance, and get a survivor annuity if I die after I retire. The only thing we really need for her is health insurance. (since for now social security is not an option, since it would have to be for everyone, not just feds)
109
Dan- Don't back off or back down, please. Your passion is contagious and will someday move mountains.
110
I love that whenever the gays protest loudly we're told to shut up and wait because, gosh darn it, there are so many *other* issues that have to be squared away first.
It's as if people don't realize that LGBT folks KNOW there are lots of important issues, but our lives are important, too. I appreciate the work President Obama is doing on a whole host of issues. I just think he's been piss poor on LGBT issues, and he's the one who told him to hold his feet to the fire. Those who tell us to wait illustrate perfectly why we have to fight for ourselves. Nobody else will.
It's as if people don't realize that LGBT folks KNOW there are lots of important issues, but our lives are important, too. I appreciate the work President Obama is doing on a whole host of issues. I just think he's been piss poor on LGBT issues, and he's the one who told him to hold his feet to the fire. Those who tell us to wait illustrate perfectly why we have to fight for ourselves. Nobody else will.
111
I'm a little confused now...CNN is reporting this morning that the memorandum WILL include health care. Was this a last minute change or did CNN get it wrong?
(Which would not be so surprising, as this is the same CNN that chose to basically ignore what is going on in Tehran.)
(Which would not be so surprising, as this is the same CNN that chose to basically ignore what is going on in Tehran.)
112
111, I think that the Obama admin is making it up as they go along. It was a hastily made announcement, and even they didn't know the details. This is basically an emergency plan to save an upcoming GBLT fund raiser. They want our money, and out votes now, but they want to hold off on giving us equal rights until...to be determined.
113
29, "Throughout the world, racial barriers began dropping more than 100 years before we integrated our armed forces"
Huh? 100 years before we integrated our armed forces, slavery was still legal. And most of the legal racial barriers were between 30-60 years old in the late 40s. Blacks in the south had far more rights in the 1880s than they did in the 1940s. YOu don't know what you're talking about. Racial barriers coming down, my ass.
Dan is absolutely right: this is insulting. Hundreds of corporations in every state in the union figured out how to provide employee benefits for gay partners decades ago; now it's too hard for the feds? That's RIDICULOUS. And to splash out this restriction in a press announcement that was supposed to be GOOD news is unbelievable.
Huh? 100 years before we integrated our armed forces, slavery was still legal. And most of the legal racial barriers were between 30-60 years old in the late 40s. Blacks in the south had far more rights in the 1880s than they did in the 1940s. YOu don't know what you're talking about. Racial barriers coming down, my ass.
Dan is absolutely right: this is insulting. Hundreds of corporations in every state in the union figured out how to provide employee benefits for gay partners decades ago; now it's too hard for the feds? That's RIDICULOUS. And to splash out this restriction in a press announcement that was supposed to be GOOD news is unbelievable.
115
@110, protest all you the fuck you want, and don't shut up, but do it with some intellectual honesty, Obama favors a legislative solution, and rightfully so as that will be the only way for it to be durable and lasting. Everyone seems to want to avoid the hard work of petitioning congress and would rather have Obama act on his own, which is the same type of executive branch power grab that Bush used numerous times to horrible effect.
117
I told you naive faggots that Obama would use you and throw you away like a dirty cum rag AND I WAS RIGHT!!!
You must have been some kind of stupid naive wimpy white-guilt Seattle progressive liberal douche to not be able to see how obvious it was from the get-go.
Jeeezus, you naive fags, you completely ignored the fact that Obama went to a racist black-nationalist church where "being black" is like their fucking religion or something. A "being black" church that gave notorious Jew-hater and fag-hater, Louis Farrakhan of the Negroes of Islam, a "lifetime achievement award". You naive white fags chose to TOTALLY IGNORE all that and you called anyone who pointed out the TRUTH a "racist".
You naive wimpy white faggots can choke on Obama's dick for all I care because you have already proved how stupid and willfully blind you are.
You must have been some kind of stupid naive wimpy white-guilt Seattle progressive liberal douche to not be able to see how obvious it was from the get-go.
Jeeezus, you naive fags, you completely ignored the fact that Obama went to a racist black-nationalist church where "being black" is like their fucking religion or something. A "being black" church that gave notorious Jew-hater and fag-hater, Louis Farrakhan of the Negroes of Islam, a "lifetime achievement award". You naive white fags chose to TOTALLY IGNORE all that and you called anyone who pointed out the TRUTH a "racist".
You naive wimpy white faggots can choke on Obama's dick for all I care because you have already proved how stupid and willfully blind you are.
118
You're right YAANWFWODUYA, and I'm sure we're all very sorry. You don't come off as a screaming racist homobigot douche at all.
119
42 Nothing he does is ever good enough for them. That's why like you I believe that the best thing he can do is just to back away from these issues, all he's doing is giving the republicans something to rally up their base, all he's gaining is a possible headache from involving himself in this.
120
Loveschild: Except for the fact that popular support for repealing DADT is higher than the President's own approval ratings.
One of the best things he can do is push Congress to repeal DADT. This will strengthen the military in a time of war and fulfill his campaign promise. It might even boost his popularity and political capital for the health care fight.
One of the best things he can do is push Congress to repeal DADT. This will strengthen the military in a time of war and fulfill his campaign promise. It might even boost his popularity and political capital for the health care fight.
121
119, Correction: Nothing less that what Obama promised to do while collecting our money, and votes is good enough for us. The republican base already hates Obama, ignoring gay rights isn't going to change that, nor will honoring his campaign promises on gay rights. Obama will never get the right wing base to support or vote for him, and he's losing our votes and support as well.
123
The Fierce Fraud is at it again.
My partner of 24yrs and I are constituents of Jared Polis. We've both informed him that he will no longer receive our votes should he participate in the LGBT DNC fundraiser.
My partner of 24yrs and I are constituents of Jared Polis. We've both informed him that he will no longer receive our votes should he participate in the LGBT DNC fundraiser.
124
"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."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/predirective.ht…
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."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/predirective.ht…
125
Dan is being intellectually dishonest and unreasonable. But you know what? It's not the moderates with well-reasoned arguments who set the stage for social change, its the people screaming at the top of their lungs and demanding their and their rights. So, Dan, even though I think you're full of shit, keep it up. Its more important to demand attention for your cause than to be 100% accurate.
126
The public support might be there, but the Congress is NOT on board. This is because everyone is letting the President take the flack for this, hoping he'll put out some temporary measure and that the following president will do the same. We're letting Congress off the hook farrrrrrrr too easily.
We have under 40 votes in the Senate, mainly because it's not a top-of-mind issue. They will vote it out of committee until their priorities are met. They will not bring it to the floor. Not until everyone has been personally contacted and talked to over and over again.
Everyone, absolutely EVERYONE needs to get this issue sent along to their Senators, and even their reps. Tell them to draft bill after bill that simply and succinctly repeals DOMA and attach it to the healthcare bill. It is indeed an issue of relevence to healthcare and would certainly garner the votes needed in that respect.
We have under 40 votes in the Senate, mainly because it's not a top-of-mind issue. They will vote it out of committee until their priorities are met. They will not bring it to the floor. Not until everyone has been personally contacted and talked to over and over again.
Everyone, absolutely EVERYONE needs to get this issue sent along to their Senators, and even their reps. Tell them to draft bill after bill that simply and succinctly repeals DOMA and attach it to the healthcare bill. It is indeed an issue of relevence to healthcare and would certainly garner the votes needed in that respect.
127
Dan, thanks for your righteous anger and your eloquence. You're speaking for a lot of us who are truly disappointed - and pissed.
129
Wow. It's almost poetic how two-faced and calculated and totally disingenuous the Obama administration is being towards our gay community.
130
I just sent my Obama t-shirt to the White House with a handwritten letter saying that I won't be a volunteer, ATM, or a billboard for anyone who isn't an advocate for me. Anyone else with Obama-gear that they don't feel like wearing right now?
131
@130...that's a great idea. I saw mine peeking up from the bottom of a dresser drawer this morning and felt like I'd been kicked in the gut thinking about wearing it on election night and literally weeping with joy.
132
@128
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.
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.
133
@ 119,
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?
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?
135
Yo. @88,
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!"
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!"
137
A couple of people have said in the thread above: Dan, why do you care so much about getting married, when you & your partner are not monogamous? Not the issue. I happen to be in a longterm monogamous thing, 'cause that's what works for the two of us. But I have plenty of straight & gay pals, together way longer then me & my S.O., who have open relationships: some even like playing with others together.
& 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.
& 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.
138
Just wanted to say thanks, Dan! Nothing to add, but I sure sppreciate you keeping the pressure on.
139
the old "sorry disenfranchised folks, we have more important things to deal with than your civil rights" excuse SHOULD have died out 45 years ago, but I see that the eternally lame are still trotting it out...Guess what? The "disenfranchised" are fucking sick and tired of being doormats/cashcows for the Democratic Party. Yes, we want banking reform; yes, we want an end to "The War on Terror"; yes, we want health care reform. But the tired old refrain that queer civil rights isn't worthy to be on the administration's plate with the other 125 things on the menu/agenda is a slap in the face to the millions of queer Americans who support the Democrats and Obama in particular.
keep it up, Dan.
keep it up, Dan.
141
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between the two, including the (false) assumption that a Presidential Directive expires when the President leaves office.
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."
More...
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."
142
I'd still like to know when there ever was a time that international conflict and economic problems didn't exist in this country. Anybody? Or when we can 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.
More...
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.
143
No, really, the entire world was at perfect peace during the Civil Rights Movement! Why, we were just exchanging RECIPES with Vietnam and the Soviet Union! Burgers for Borscht! French Fries for Pho! It would have been very bad form for all those African Americans to push for their civil rights if the US had any other concerns at all at the time. How selfish that would have been! How unrealistic! How distracting!
That's the lesson I learned from the Civil Rights Movement, anyway.
That's the lesson I learned from the Civil Rights Movement, anyway.
144
@143 for the SLOG Day of Inaction and Much Whining win.
Yeah, now that ECB is gone we str8s are the new minority.
Yeah, now that ECB is gone we str8s are the new minority.
145
"But what about fed workers in states without ssm or domestic partnerships?"
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.
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.
146
If you want the laws changed then you need to hound your congress critters. They write laws, not the POTUS. Otherwise, complaining about President Obama doesn't amount to anything more than venting. Besides, I don't recall hearing him say he wouldn't sign legislation that addressed gay rights issues. Anyone wanna bet he'd not only sign a bill that survived Congress but make a press circus out of it?
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...
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...
147
That said, I do realize I'm not the one whose right to marry isn't being stepped on. The perspective is undoubtedly different when you're on the receiving end of discriminatory practices. So start hounding your congress critters!!!!
149
@141 yeah Liz, I saw that too, but Dan and other bloggers refuse to stop repeating this innacuracy. it's becoming disinformation as opposed to misinformation.
whatevea.
whatevea.
150
144:
"Hey, everyone, look how little I care!"
** posts about it **
** is unaware of the irony **
"Hey, everyone, look how little I care!"
** posts about it **
** is unaware of the irony **
151
I still find myself lusting for a way to filter bullshit posts better. Guess I have to improve my skimming skills. Meanwhile, big kudos to Eva for spelling out an important point for some simpletons here. Now for my two cents -
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.
-
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.
-
152
if i hear this 'there are more important issues' one more time my head will explode. what is 'more important' than the equality under the law guaranteed by our constitution ? there will ALWAYS be more important issues to people who don't care about your rights. the struggle for gay equality has gone on for decades. it didn't start with barack and it will not end with barack. if he thinks he can use us for money and votes and then stab us in the back in the courts, or placate us with this sham memorandum, he is mistaken.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (154) RSS