Skip to main content

and he is not referring to a woman named Farrow.  The letters stand for "Missing in Action" which is how he describes the President in this Washington Post column.  Robinson offers one very key point, noting that Obama during the campaign favored repeal of the noxious Defense of Marriage Act.  In his penultimate paragraph he then writes

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

It is there I want to start.

I am not going to explore all the issue contained in Robinson's column,  He begins by noting that he is actually capable of seeing both sides of an argument, using as examples guns and affirmative action, issues on which there can be shades of gray.  He then writes

On some issues, though, I really don't see anything but black and white. Among them is the "question" of granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which really isn't a question at all. It's a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge.

 On this I fully agree.  Of greater importance, I think our history of attempting to narrowly parse the language of he 14th Amendment to avoid confronting its requirement for full equal protection is not only shameful and embarrassing, it puts us well behind other nations, and costs our nation dearly.

The Fourteenth Amendment has its all important Due Process clause,beginning to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights against state action.  There are three applicable clauses, the first two of which read

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

and the third, clearly applicable to our continued shame of allowing discrimination against gays reads

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  Let me properly frame that final clause: No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Robinson reminds us that language used to discriminate against gays in the military by Don't Ask, Don't Tell is at least parallel if not identical to that used against blacks in integrated units.  It was shameful then, it was shameful when Colin Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff applied it towards gays in the military, and it harms our nation.  

I praised Powell when he rightly raised the issue of the mother at the gravestone of her decorated but dead soldier son, killed in Iraq. He was a Muslim. Powell rightly noted that there was nothing wrong with being a Muslim in this country, because someone like Kareem Khan could die in the service of this nation.  Powell made those remarks while announcing his endorsement of Obama for President during a Meet the Press Interview.  While I admired that outspokenness by Powell, I wondered if he would be willing to say the same were he to see the mother of a gay soldier or marine who had died?  We of course have had decorated gay military personnel.  If you have not heard of Leonard Matlovich, perhaps you should examine his tombstone at Congressional Cemetary in our nation's Capital:

Sgt. Leonard Matlovich

Obama is committed to overturning DADT.  He says he is committed to overturning DOMA.  While I do not know how the current Supreme Court would rule, it has always seemed to me that DOMA is patently unconstitutional, a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, Section ` of Article IV:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

  I know of very conservative legal scholars who also find DOMA unconstitutional.

Of greater importance perhaps is to note, as does Robinson, that with gay right we seem to be recapitulating black rights.  He describes the parallel with the military.  There is a similar parallel in the case of marriage, the 1967 case of Loving v Virginia which declared unconstitutional the antimiscegination laws of Southern states that criminalized the marriage of White Richard Loving to his black wife Mildred -  who shortly before her death came out against the proposed (and unfortunately passed) Virginia constitutional amendment against gay marriage, being very clear that she viewed it as equal to the discrimination against her and her husband.

Attitudes are changing, and perhaps we should listen to the young people.  I have written of the difference of the lives of my students in high school to that I experienced, graduating in a liberal suburb of NY in 1963.  Our gay students were not out.  And despite the Civil Rights movement there were no open black-white couples, and only rarely white-Asian.  My students all know openly gay classmates, and some same-sex couples are quite open.  I have commented on the impact this has even on those from religiously conservative backgrounds, such as the young African-American woman whose family is deeply religious who wondered why some people wanted to deny her gay classmates their right to the pursuit of happiness?

One argument against continuing DADT is that we are allied in NATO with countries that allow openly gay people to serve in the military.  Unless we are going to argue that they are unreliable allies because of that open service and break or restrict military ties, our alliance clearly undercuts any argument about having openly serving gays in our armed services.

Similarly, increasingly nations with which we have close ties are honoring the rights of same-sex couple, including fully recognizing their marriages.  We now have 5 states that are catching up with the nations of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Sweden.  And with respect to DOMA, we have several countries doing what the District of Columbia just voted to do.   The District voted to recognize same sex marriage from those states where it is legal.  Israel and Japan have a similar attitude.

I do not believe that some people are more equal than others, thus I do not believe some are less equal.  While our national courts have not yet caught up with those in other nations -  even Nepal has judicially ruled that gay couples have the right to marry - and while sexual orientation is not yet a protected class the way race, religion, national origin and to some degree gender are in the U.S.,  if we allow the parsing of clear language of constitutional provisions in order to be able to discriminate, we bely our supposed national motto of E pluribus unum - out of many, one.  Yes, it's original formulation was one nation from many states.   Even that was probably not true until after the bloodbath of the Civil War, and even today we have states with governors (Texas) and legislatures (Oklahoma) that still want to argue that somehow they have the right to reject the implications of being one nation.  

We have a moral obligation to all our citizens.  Even further, most of the rights protected speak not of citizens - for we did not fully define citizenship to the 14th Amendment - but of persons.  And the Equal Protection clause clearly speaks not of citizens, but of persons.

Are we prepared to say to Canada or Spain or Belgium or the Netherlands or Norway or Sweden that people legally married in those countries with which we have close ties will not be considered married in the United States?  Perhaps we are,  but it is hard to rationalize such selective recognition, just as the Constitution makes clear that there should be NO such selective recognition among the states.

I think this is a clear moral issue.  And I think Robinson nails it in his final paragrap:

I'm not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically -- more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

Mr. President.  You are the product of a marriage that was illegal in a number of states at the time of your birth.  Your parents would, had they come to my residence of Virginia, faced the same felony charges with which Richard and Mildred Loving were threatened.  Those charges were wrong then.   And the refusal to recognize the rights of gay people are equally wrong now.  When will you step up to your responsibility to lead the nation on this important moral issue?

Peace.

Originally posted to teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:06 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Full rights for all of our people (129+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wozzle, Cederico, pucknomad, Buckeye BattleCry, GreenSooner, alisonk, decafdyke, ScientistMom in NY, tnichlsn, bellatrys, lysias, celdd, sobermom, SallyCat, Norwegian Chef, peace voter, Larry Bailey, wishingwell, michael1104, andreww, wader, pdxRita, Levity, WV Democrat, tomjones, SanDiegoDem, homogenius, davidkc, julifolo, ExStr8, radarlady, JanetT in MD, DarlingtonD, PBen, craigkg, Turkana, jcitybone, SheriffBart, Spathiphyllum, SSMir, ballybough, gwilson, Mad Biologist, VolvoDrivingLiberal, kestrel9000, fiddler crabby, Partially Impartial, Farradin, plf515, AndyS In Colorado, rsie, emsprater, Hedwig, AmericanRiverCanyon, One Pissed Off Liberal, JohnnySacks, anotherdemocrat, dotsright, khereva, Redbear, Nespolo, LamontCranston, jamesia, cadejo4, Killer of Sacred Cows, Ken in Tex, Moderation, Rumarhazzit, leonard145b, cloudbustingkid, Predictor, Ms Johnson, Neon Mama, roycej, Scioto, scooter in brooklyn, dave1042, brooklynbadboy, envwq, luckylizard, Athenocles, Guadalupe59, Dems 2008, 1BQ, smellybeast, Boudicia Dark, Chino Blanco, h bridges, velvet blasphemy, DefendOurConstitution, elziax, borndem, billssha, BlueMama, CityLightsLover, ravenlore, Sarbec, NCrissieB, commonmass, bperk, miss SPED, Vacationland, Obamajority, fidellio, stunzeed, chrome327, KentuckyKat, Eddie L, Anne933, beverlywoods, ricardomath, DudleyMason, theKgirls, heart of a quince, SuperBowlXX, I love OCD, Lost Left Coaster, ardyess, sharistuff, Blue VA, skip945, Civil Writes Activist, Ms Bluezone, progressiveinga, merrily1000, dakinishir, Curiosity, Buddhist Brother, licorice114

    is the only acceptable position, morally and constitutionally.

    Full rights for all my students - I refuse to see any denied full participation.

    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

    by teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:07:59 AM PDT

  •  Tipped and Rec'd with all my heart... (18+ / 0-)

    ...as a Gay American long arguing for and always committed to every one of the issues you cover so beautifully, I could NOT have put my feelings and beliefs into as excellent a presentation/diary as you just did.  Thank you Ken.

    Recommmended with true gusto.

    39 Years Of Yellow-Dogging And Then 1 Year Of WTF

    by Larry Bailey on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:13:23 AM PDT

    •  you are welcome (19+ / 0-)

      if rights are denied to any, then the rights of all of us are in jeopardy.  That is my selfish justification

      but it is far more -  it is basic fairness, it is required by the promise of this nation.

      Peace.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:18:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Recommended Diary -- well deserved. (n/t) (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kestrel9000, KentuckyKat, I love OCD

        40+ Years Of Yellow-Dogging & No More WTF

        by Larry Bailey on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:41:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I really prefer to frame the issue (5+ / 0-)

        as a failure by the state to meet its obligations.
        The change we look for is from the bureaucracy--that they enter all marriages into the registry, regardless of personal preference.

        The Governor of Maine said it well:

           "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

           "This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs," the governor said. "It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and state.

           "It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government," Baldacci said.

        How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

        by hannah on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:17:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it is basic fairness (7+ / 0-)

        it is basic fairness, it is required by the promise of this nation.

        I just wanted to repeat that.

        I believe the Constitution pretty much got it right. I think it's time to stop being a nation of predators and prey, a nation of fear, a nation which hides from the truth.

        It's time to become a nation of 'we, the people,' a nation of bravery, a nation of honesty.

        That's what we promised ourselves.

        The soup got more affectionate.

        by merrily1000 on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:39:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not only rights, but happiness (3+ / 0-)

        I feel that my marriage is diminished because some people are denied what I have.  This, of course, is the direct opposite of the conservative attitude that "gay marriage" threatens "opposite marriage."

        It took years of infertility treatments to have my first child.  My joy in having him was diminished because of the sorrow of several friends who tried just as hard, but did not manage to have a child.  One, in particular, went to great lengths and conceived once, but miscarried.  Her husband refused to even consider adoption (they are now divorced).  She gave my baby a beautiful hand-knitted blanket, blue with a duck in the middle.  I was very moved by the fact that she spent hours making a gift for my baby.  It must have been painful for her.  My son is 16.  I am still sad that she did not have a child.

        My feelings about my friend not having a child are analogous to my feelings about gay people not being able to marry.

        •  If the California Supremes uphold Prop 8 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ScientistMom in NY, craigkg

          while also upholding my marriage (which is one of the 18,000 enacted between June 17th and November 3 2008, when it was legal for us gays to get married in CA) I'm going to feel that my marriage has been diminished as well, because people exactly like me will be denied what he and I have. That's not justice.

          I've had people say "Well, but if they uphold your marriage, why should you care if they uphold the will of the people and Prop 8 too?" I can't get across to them that I have no desire to be a member of a class that my single, engaged, or partnered-but-not-married GLBT friends cannot be part of because of the small-mindedness of the people who enacted Prop 8 in the first place. It's not just about me and my husband. It's about all gays, all lesbians, all bisexuals, all transgender people. And these folks Just Don't Get It.

          There is an art to teaching that is independent of the subject matter. - daveinojai

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Fri May 08, 2009 at 08:57:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped, recced and (14+ / 0-)

    mail sent to the GLBT group.

    Human rights for all humans.  Period.

  •  politics.... (15+ / 0-)

    pure and simple...out political class...including at its head Obama and his whole political apparatus are still under the mindset that this is a toxic issue, based on the anti-gay fervor of earlier in the decade. Just like they think that going big on healthcare is a toxic issue based on scars from an even more distant past, as if nothing has changed.

    To them, even though 75% of Americans support the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, it is still "too soon." I don't doubt that Obama personally is in favor of full equality, and probably even in favor of gay marriage. However, he is not really one to gamble his political future on perceived hot potatoes--for all his "going big" stuff, he is one of the most cautious politicians out there, and of course the number one concern of all presidents is their own political viability, always has been.

    Washington doesn't act until it is forced to, rarely out of its own volition. As long as the establishment continues to think that gay rights are toxic, nothing will happen, or if it does, it will at a snail's pace.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:35:57 AM PDT

    •  July 26, 2009 (8+ / 0-)

      the 51st anniversary of President Truman shit-canning racial segregation in the military.

      I wonder whether Obama is waiting for that date to shit-can DADT.

      Hey No Drama - we could use some No PR as well.  Just get rid of the damn DADT NOW.

    •  Cowardice + Logic of Lesser Evilism (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg, Predictor, Boudicia Dark

      As we pass major tipping point after major tipping point on issues of GLBT rights, the leadership of the national Democratic Party is still sitting on its hands.

      Clinton gave us DOMA and DODT, after bravely--but dishonestly, it turns out--running the first presidential campaign that made rights promises to the gay community in 1992.

      Ever since, what ought to be a matter of fundamental rights has become a matter of political calculation. And the calculation is always the same: if Democrats support equal rights, they make an issue for the right; if they oppose equal rights, who are the majority of Americans who support equal rights gonna vote for...the GOP?

      It's worth recalling the political courage that it took Harry Truman to make what now look like fairly small steps toward equal rights for African Americans in 1948: desegregating the armed forces and support Hubert Humphrey's civil rights plank at the 1948 Democratic convention.

      Of course, Truman's choices had much more dire political consequences than would Obama's decision to abandon DOMA or DODT: Truman's own base included the vast majority of white segregationists in the South, who bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond in the 1948 presidential race.

      Truman deserves credit, of course, for doing the right thing on these issues despite the political cost.  But it's worth noting the context in which he did so: former VP Henry Wallace was mounting a third-party presidential run to Truman's left and racial equality was one of Wallace's big issues.  The Wallace campaign ultimately fizzled (he got only around 2% of the vote in November 1948), but he helped disrupt the logic of two-party lesser evilism that underwrites the kind of cowardice that we've seen for the last two decades from the Democrats on this issue.

      Self-styled progressives who call for balanced budgets are not merely parroting conservatives; they are parroting dead conservatives. - James Galbraith

      by GreenSooner on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:36:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe it's time for a new progressive party (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg

        One that isn't tied to the biases and fears of the past.

        There is an art to teaching that is independent of the subject matter. - daveinojai

        by Killer of Sacred Cows on Fri May 08, 2009 at 08:58:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Third Party Politics Are A Pretty Thankless Task (0+ / 0-)

          Trust me. I've worked for a number of them over the years.  Our system is totally rigged against them.

          On the other hand, third parties really have made an enormous difference over the years, usually in generating new ideas or in opening up political space for old ones.

          Self-styled progressives who call for balanced budgets are not merely parroting conservatives; they are parroting dead conservatives. - James Galbraith

          by GreenSooner on Fri May 08, 2009 at 11:06:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      I love OCD

      This is about politics.  Obama and his administration don't want to get bogged down in issues like "gays in the military" or DOMA at this moment.  I intentionally say "at this moment".

      I do think that Obama intends to push repeal of DADT in the next year or so. But he will not make it a top priority....he is trying to avoid the Clinton mistakes of 1993.  On DOMA I am less sure.  I have read that he is awaiting a national consensus to form before he jumps in.  In other words he want the public to catch up with equality before he seriously pushes the issue.

      •  Also agree, (0+ / 0-)

        and I have such mixed feelings about this.  One one hand, WTF!  On the other, the RW is seething already, and what happens if the President takes a strong stand in support of marriage equality?  I hate the idea of being held hostage by crazies, but who else holds hostages?  

        I really think this is Obama waiting for the tide to turn strongly enough that the crazies are too marginalized to overturn laws in individual states.  That's my fear - they have proven themselves to be very organized and are always well funded.  The right despises Obama - would his support be the rallying energy for overturning equality laws in Iowa and the NE states?

        I don't know.  The tension between what's right and what's possible makes me crazy sometimes.

        They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

        by I love OCD on Fri May 08, 2009 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's been shown (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          craigkg

          that when court or legislative decisions about social issues are made, the tide generally turns much quicker than if the courts or legislature waits for the public to be behind the law. The law has teeth. It has legitimacy. It actually does affect public opinion.

          When Perez v. Sharp was decided in California in 1948, over 90% of the state's voters opposed legalizing interracial marriage. That opposition went down rapidly after the decision. Look at opposition to marriage equality in Massachusetts after the Goodridge decision, too. And look at what's happening nationwide on the topic as more dominoes fall all over the country. People are increasingly seeing this as a non-issue, and part of the reason is that they're being exposed to the utter banality and normality of marriages of two men or two women and seeing that it's no big deal.

          Obama needs to get behind overturning DOMA and DADT, and he needs to get behind it NOW, not two years from now.

          There is an art to teaching that is independent of the subject matter. - daveinojai

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:02:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not arguing that point - (0+ / 0-)

            clearly the Iowa decision is impacting what the states of the NE are doing, and all of it is changing hearts and minds.

            My question is about Obama being a lightning rod for the ultra-right - could his support be enough to motivate a harder, better organized pushback from them?  If so, I hope he keeps his mouth shut.  If not, then where the hell is he?

            They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

            by I love OCD on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:47:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I believe that no one has rights (5+ / 0-)

    until ALL have rights.

  •  Equal Rights? or not? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, ExStr8, leonard145b

    that is the question...

    Keep Religion in Church

    by titotitotito on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:50:46 AM PDT

  •  Protected by laws? Novel concept. (8+ / 0-)

    No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    •  Example-- (0+ / 0-)

      when you use the phrase "protected by laws," you're considering the issue from the perspective of the victim/recipient/consumer of an act.  When the Constitution says "no state shall deny" it's addressing the actors, the agents of the state who've been given orders.

      That's what I mean when I say, "don't think about the victims."

      Public officials are like many other people who prefer to do the telling, rather than doing what they are told, even when it's the Constitution that's doing the telling.

      Marriage registration is just a small part of the much bigger question; who rules and how should agency be defined?  

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:27:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've never understood why people are against (12+ / 0-)

    gay marriage. It seems that we, as a society, would want to encourage long term, stable relationships.  Then my mother (80 years old) told me she is against it.  When I asked why, she said she's uncomfortable watching guys kiss on TV.  "And so? I'm uncomfortable watching anyone have sex -- but why should that be a criterion for granting someone the right to marry? All you've ever wanted for us is to be happy - that's what most parents wish for their kids.  And these people are someone's sons and daughters.  Let them be happy." I don't know that I convinced her of anything, but she at least nodded in agreement.

    The older generation may never change their minds, but the young people are accepting it.  Change is coming, but it should be coming faster.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics" FDR

    by theKgirls on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:55:24 AM PDT

  •  politics is politics (5+ / 0-)

    donnie mcclurkin... just sayin'.

  •  He's doing it right. (6+ / 0-)

    It's starting with the states, which is exactly where it needs to begin.  I don't even think we'll have to get to 26 states before the federal government compels the rest, but we'll have to be closer than a half-dozen.

    •  It has to come through LEGISLATION, not courts (5+ / 0-)

      or we'll get to hear the Religious Right whine for another 40 years about "activist judges," and be forever one Supreme Court decision away from yet another underprivileged group effectively losing all their civil rights.

      I'd say we need a constitutional amendment, but the Fangimaly Values types can rouse themselves to scream at enough State legislatures it won't happen.

      Radarlady

      •  Racial civil rights were hammered through by the (19+ / 0-)

        courts!!! Why are GLBT rights less of a priority and treated differently by our so called allies on this site and in "our" political party??? People here and in DC need to grow a pair and tell the homophobes to get enlightened or go the way of the Dixiecrats! And fuck the religious right. They deserve scorn not appeasement! Courts acted in MA and a few years later it is a non-issue!

        Mr. President, I realize you've got a lot on your plate, but we've been starving at the back of the line. Please throw us a few crumbs like ending DADT & DO

        by tnichlsn on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:35:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Civil rights involve a citizen's participation (0+ / 0-)

          in governing.  Marriage is an example of the right of free association, a human right.  Whether it's recorded in the public records and made legitimate depends on whether government agencies are working right--i.e. providing equal service.

          How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

          by hannah on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:41:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what is more 'participating in governing' than (4+ / 0-)

            serving in the military?

            Mr. President, I realize you've got a lot on your plate, but we've been starving at the back of the line. Please throw us a few crumbs like ending DADT & DO

            by tnichlsn on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:50:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, actually, what we call civil rights (0+ / 0-)

              are more like obligations than beneficial assets, like our inalienable human rights.

              I'm not sure why the term "right" is preferred to "obligation."  Perhaps because "right" reflects a certain moral ambivalence and disguises the fact that citizen participation is not highly valued by those who presume to rule.  "Obligation" carries an implied social relationship, a certain mutuality that the ruling class would just as soon do without.

              It seems odd, but obligation is like payment in that it promotes equality.  As do contracts.  Equality is not something that's experienced in isolation.

              How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

              by hannah on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:07:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  "Free association" =/= marriage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows

            Free association is a constitutional provision in the First Amendment that lets you hold meetings with whomever you want. It has nothing to do with marriage. You're parsing semantics pointlessly and incorrectly.

            Here is how the dictionary defines civil rights:

            Main Entry:
               civil rights
            Function:
               noun plural
            Date:
               1658

            : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen ; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

            This distinction you're hammering does not exist.

        •  I'm thinking of Roe and the ERA, here (3+ / 0-)

          GLBT rights are certainly not a lesser priority, at least not for me. I'm attempting to suggest a long-term strategy that will guarantee the successful creation and preservation of GLBT civil rights.

          Racial civil rights began with three Constitutional amendments, which the South proceeded to ignore when Reconstruction ended. Brown was an important milestone, true, but it took Johnson's New Society legislation, combined with significant grassroots efforts, to finally give the whole thing teeth (and funding).

          The way we all sweat any Supreme Court decision or justice change says it can't just be the Courts. As for the ERA, by having ratifications come up one at a time, the RR could run around from one State Capital to another, present astroturfed opposition, and oppose it enough to defeat it by deadline.

          Right now, Nancy Pelosi is behind the DC marriage equality efforts. We're looking at a rolling legislative ball, which we in the grassroots need to get behind and shove.

          Okay?

          Radarlady

          •  ;-) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows, Predictor

            Mr. President, I realize you've got a lot on your plate, but we've been starving at the back of the line. Please throw us a few crumbs like ending DADT & DO

            by tnichlsn on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:45:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your heart is in the right place, but (5+ / 0-)

            arguing that we are moving slowly on gay equality for the good of the gays is pretty patronizing, and totally incorrect.

            Sure, racial equality started before Brown and Loving -- but gay equality started before this marriage debate too! Gay sex was largely repealed legislatively during the 70's. The states started prosecuting crimes targeting gay people in the 80's. Antidiscrimination and AIDS funding were the efforts of the 90's. Now here we are in the new millennium. Marriage's time has come. Going slowly doesn't help anyone except the people who want to go slowly.

            •  Sorry, that should read: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Killer of Sacred Cows, Predictor

              "...the CRIMINALIZATION of gay sex was repealed legislatively..."

            •  I don't mean slowly (0+ / 0-)

              I want effective, permanent, top-down change here. That's the point of the legislative approach. What I see that needs to happen is Great Society scale legislation and funding for GLBT rights. That's what it took to get a major shift for civil rights: bills and money and programs coming so thick and fast in the mid-'60's the Right couldn't react. Women's rights have come in dribs and drabs and generational adjustments, not legal changes. They're still not codified. I remember Bork telling the Senate that women's rights were less protected than civil rights were because there were fewer laws on the books relating to women. I don't want, 15 years from now, to have another conservative SC nominee say the same for GLBT rights.

              What has happened so far in terms of liberalization for GLBT is long overdue, but I want to make it stick!

              Radarlady

        •  Racial civil rights NOT come from courts. (0+ / 0-)

          The court's gave us dred scott.  The legislatures gave us the post civil war amendments and statutes, then the civil rights acts of 1964.

          There's no act of racial equality or civil rights that doesn't have its basis in the act of a legislature.

          I'm reccing all the community diaries. Even that sucky gardening one that only losers hang out in.

          by Inland on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:33:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wrong - Brown v Board (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            craigkg, Killer of Sacred Cows

            was a judicial establishment of the right to a non-segregated public education.

            do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

            by teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 08:25:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Based on the 14th amendment. (0+ / 0-)

              No fourteenth amendment, no brown vs board.

              I'm reccing all the community diaries. Even that sucky gardening one that only losers hang out in.

              by Inland on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:09:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you said act, not action (0+ / 0-)

                that is point one

                of greater importance, the 14th Amendment had been interpreted to support segregation in Plessy.  In Brown the Supreme Court removed schools from the framework of separate but equal, but did not otherwise at that time address Jim Crow Laws.  Thus the action was strictly one by the Court.

                The issue is whether legislative acts can justifiably be overturned by Courts as in violation of state or federal constitutions.  You seemed to argue that they could not, I am arguing that they can.  And effectively.  The argument is not whether at some point in the past a constitutional provision was at least in part legislatively created.  The issue is whether the overturning of discrimination is accomplished by Court order, as was the case in Brown, at least on paper, or by legislative action, as has been done now in several states with respect to marriage equality.

                In fact, the role of the Courts have often been to overturn restrictions imposed by legislatures, as was done in Loving v Virginia, which I cite in the diary.

                do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                by teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:12:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's not the issue at all. (0+ / 0-)

                  The issue is whether legislative acts can justifiably be overturned by Courts as in violation of state or federal constitutions.

                  THAT issue was determined in Marbury v Madison.

                  The issue is whether the black civil rights were won in courts or the legislature.  There were precious few civil rights for blacks until the post Civil War amendments.  The Civil Rights Acts of 64 on and Fair Housing Acts came later.

                  Even Brown required a constitutional amendment to hang its hat on.

                  Conclusion: not courts but legislatures.

                  I'm reccing all the community diaries. Even that sucky gardening one that only losers hang out in.

                  by Inland on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:27:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sorry - disagree with your framing (0+ / 0-)

                    since Brown is based on equal protection clause of 14th amendment which from Plessy until well after Brown served as a legal basis for Jim Crow laws.  Conclusion - legislative actions are insufficient, constitutional interpretation is often required.

                    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                    by teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:18:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  We also have to get into the habit of (2+ / 0-)

        focusing legislation on the behavior of state agencies, rather than the behavior of individual citizens.

        How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

        by hannah on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:36:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see why it matters. (4+ / 0-)

        A win is a win.

        A court victory is a win.

        A legislative victory is a win.

        A public vote is a win.

        I can't see any reason to be picky about how a win is acheived.

        illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

        by ricardomath on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:26:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! This is not a game, and the purpose is (3+ / 0-)

          not to humiliate our opponent or to achieve the highest possible score. WE WANT TO GET MARRIED. Action by the U.S. Supreme Court will get us there just as surely as a Congressional statute, and if it happens faster, so much the better. No one should have to live under discriminatory laws even a day longer so that some people can feel smug about the "legitimacy" of the route taken.

      •  Really? Did they whine about Brown v. Board (0+ / 0-)

        in the nineties?

        Not all Supreme Court cases remain controversial. Specifically, those construing Equal Protection become canonized in public sentiment fairly rapidly -- and certainly more rapidly than waiting for legislative unanimity.

    •  Agreed, he can safely be a follower, not a leader (0+ / 0-)

      The tides are turning without him. He's not going to change many minds. What changes minds is seeing that many other people change their minds. And that'll happen with or without Obama.

      Let him focus on education, health care, and global warming.

      car wreck : car insurance :: climate wreck : climate insurance

      by HarlanNY on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:25:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't argue with the successes so far. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      Basically the republicans have three argumetns against gay marriage:

      One, it's wrong.

      Two, it's a state matter.

      Three, it's shouldn't be forced on people by courts.

      Note that two of them are procedural and consitutionally based, and respectable, and the substantive one isn't so good and is becoming less repeccted daily.

      So what can they say as legislators take them up on two and three?  Not a thing.

      And what can Obama do?  Nothing that's as good as state legislators doing it.

      I'm reccing all the community diaries. Even that sucky gardening one that only losers hang out in.

      by Inland on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:55:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When the Iowa decision came down, here is what... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Obama had to say:

      "The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

      linky

      What??? No congratulations??? Underwhelming to say the least.

      "Respects the decision", huh? How gracious.

      And what was that stuff about Civil Unions all about? Is it just some boilerplate language leftover from his campaign? If so, what does it have to do with Iowa?

      Civil Unions are totally irrelevant to Iowa. We have never had Civil Unions, nor has there ever been any serious attempt to institute Civil Unions here in Iowa.

      In fact, it is not even clear that Iowa will recognize out-of-state Civil Unions.

      If a same-sex couple have been legally married elsewhere, their marriage is valid in Iowa as of Monday. It is not yet clear if civil unions from another state or registered domestic partnerships will be recognized in Iowa.

      linky

      illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

      by ricardomath on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:57:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think a lot of Democrats, Obama included.... (5+ / 0-)

    ....are still a little gun-shy from 2004. Like all politicians, they're mostly a very risk-averse bunch. And they saw how hard Republicans hit us over the head with various gay rights issues in the last decade or two and how we usually came out on the losing side. I think many Democrats are still skeptical about polls moving in our direction on marriage and DADT. I don't know how much more it's going to take, but then, Congress is usually a lagging indicator of where the country's at.

    •  I don't think that's the case with Obama. (3+ / 0-)

      I believe that his argument would be "It's happening, and it's going the right way.  I could jump in and mess up the dynamic - state legislatures are already on this."

      It becomes a matter of what is important to whom.  When your economy is teetering on the brink of exhaustion, when you have two land wars in Asia, when your populace is faced by unemployment, health care loss, and various other imminent disasters, the sexes of loving couples who wish to marry appears not to matter so much.  

      When you're winning, it's better to keep a low profile, ie be a gracious winner and enjoy the fruits of vistory - and work like hell to keep the victories going!  Prop 8, anyone?

      When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

      by wozzle on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:46:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  DADT, DOMA are federal (4+ / 0-)

        and both require federal legislation to correct. However, I don't think it's appropriate to put the whole weight of responsibility for this on Obama's thin (already burdened) shoulders. The legislation must be introduced in Congress, so pressure needs to be applied there, first.

      •  "Mess up the dynamic"? WTF? (4+ / 0-)

        You're acting like he's abandoning gay people for our own good. Give me a break. The guy's got an approval rating in the mid 60's, and when he speaks, the entire nation listens. He could be exhorting us to equality; every time he opens his mouth, he reaches an audience that it costs us tens of millions of dollars to reach.

        But he isn't, and it's because he doesn't want to spend political capital on us. This "doesn't want to mess up the dynamic" thing is a little offensive because it makes it sound like he's doing us a favor. He's NOT. His position is bigoted and he is missing in action at a crucial point in history for equality.

        •  No, he doesn't want to spend political capital (0+ / 0-)

          If there's one thing about Obama, it's that he expects others to ante up before he puts his chips in the pot.  He's cautious.  

          If CONGRESS passed legislation overturning DOMA, he'd sign it.  He's said as much.  Does Congress even have it in the works?  Not that I know of. And those little irrelevant things that you think are less important uses of his political capital are, oh, IRAQ, AVOIDING A DEPRESSION, NUCLEAR WAR IN PAKISTAN, etc.

          Your tax dollars pay for black helicopters

          by Orbital Mind Control Lasers on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:49:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, those are less important than civil equality (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            craigkg, Ms Johnson, licorice114

            LBJ managed to fight through the Civil Rights Act -- the political melee of a generation -- at the height of the Vietnam war. I don't know why Obama is so much less capable, because the problems we have today are nothing like the social tension caused by Vietnam. You think Iraq is bad? Try having a draft.

            •  your timing is wrong (0+ / 0-)

              Hardly anyone knew where Vietnam WAS when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

              Your tax dollars pay for black helicopters

              by Orbital Mind Control Lasers on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The draft hadn't started yet, but (0+ / 0-)

                the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened within one month of the Civil Rights Act.

                Regardless, the Cold War and Communist containment absolutely dwarf Iraq and the financial crisis as threats to America and distractions from social issues. The Bay of Pigs was in the five years prior, Kennedy had just been assassinated, the prospect of nuclear annihilation was on everyone's mind, etc. The idea that they had fewer distractions from civil rights then than we do today is ludicrous. Using them as an excuse for Obama's inaction is admitting that he is not half the leader that Johnson was.

    •  In 2004, didn't the Democratic presidential... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pender, KentuckyKat

      ...nominee run around from state to state voicing his support for whatever anti-gay measure or amendment happened to be on the ballot in that state, just like he supported an state amendment to overturn the MA SJC in his own state?

      Instead of fighting back, his response to being hit over the head was, "please sir, may I have another?"

      illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

      by ricardomath on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:33:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry was awful, but Obama's still bad. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg, Predictor, ricardomath

        If our only standard for decency were "not the worst person ever," nothing would matter except genocide.

        •  I agree, but... (0+ / 0-)

          ...I was responding to the statement that the Democrats are gun shy about 2004.

          Much of the beating that democrats have recieved on the issue is a result of their spinlessness in dealing with the issue.

          Instead of facing it head on, there has been a tendency to act in ways that give ammunition to those who were beating them about the head and shoulders. ("See, even the liberals agree with us!")

          The era of gay marriage as a wedge issue is finally coming to a close, but this is something that could have happened much earlier.

          illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

          by ricardomath on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:29:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I particularly appreciate (9+ / 0-)

    that you draw attention to the fact that the 14th Amendment addresses the rights of persons, not just citizens.  That is almost universal in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it's often overlooked during discussions about defense against terrorism.

    Anyone who is fortunate enough to reside in (or even just visit) this country has the rights described in our documents.  Those who seek to deny those rights most often do so out of fear or a desire to impose a narrow religious proscription on everyone, but I don't discount the fact that there are some who just do it out of meanness.  That might be a result of their own feelings of powerlessness but it's still just mean.  That debases us all and keeps us from realizing the potential that our founding made possible.  

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:20:46 AM PDT

    •  Actually, whether the Constitution follows (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckylizard

      the flag--i.e. governs the behavior of our agents of government wherever U.S. interests are present around the globe--is an unsettled question.

      When in Rome, do we do as the Romans do, or do we follow the directives set out in the Constitution?  That treaties with other nations have equal standing with the Constitution suggests that the prescriptions in the Constitution might be modified slightly according to local conditions.  That treaties have fallen into disfavor with our recent Presidents suggests that treaties proved insufficient to provide the kind of escape from Constitutional restriction they were looking for and too much permanence.

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:49:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was looking more at (0+ / 0-)

        just the Constitution and Bills of Rights.  It seems clear that the founders did not intend for those specific rights to be only for citizens.  Citizens are only mentioned in relationship to the states.  Otherwise, it's "persons."

        As far as treaties, I'm a lot less clear on that.  I do think "illegal enemy combatant" is the ultimate weasel phrase.  We've called this a war.  We're fighting it with real bullets.  We take prisoners and don't call them prisoners.  Even the media call them detainees.  In my mind, "detained" has a connotation of delayed, not held incognito forever.  This whole set-up stinks...

        -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

        by luckylizard on Fri May 08, 2009 at 02:13:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Amen to that! Once again Ken, you are "spot on". (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, Predictor

    "Try not to become a man of success, but rather to become a man of value." ~ Albert Einstein

    by LamontCranston on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:26:44 AM PDT

  •  true - and don't forget Obama's Orphans (11+ / 0-)

    When a gay parent dies in an accident, there's a greater than 50% chance their children will become orphans under federal law - no Social Security benefits, no inheritance, and lucky if they're allowed to say goodbye or to visit the surviving parent in the hospital.  Under Obama's definition of marriage, any gay couple was already "single parent" - even if they flew to Massachusetts or Iowa to get legally married.

    Obama knows this but considers it politically unwise to demand protection for those children.  Please don't blame or flame me for reporting this fact plainly.

    Obama is the most powerful president in history with the biggest popular bully pulpit.  But he does not want to call out Congress to protect these children.

    Does anyone in the White House care how many Obama Orphans have been created since January?

    levity defies gravity

    by Levity on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:30:05 AM PDT

    •  Obama orphans, Levity? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elmo, jj32, jamesia

      He's been in office for how long, and this situation - as intolerable as it is - has been going on for our entire history?

      Please...

      When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

      by wozzle on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:50:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the point is, when you attain the (8+ / 0-)

        Presidency, all the past presidents' injustices become your injustices.  

        It's interesting.  While President Obama's political fortunes are important, I would say that the lives of people who could be fixed with no dollars and the flick of a pen are rather more so.

        And yet, I'm supposed to be concerned about him.  Well, I'm rather less concerned with his daily popularity numbers than I am with people's lives that are destroyed by anti-gay policies, and I think I have my head screwed on straight in that regard.

        The point is, inheritance of past mistakes and injustices occurs at some point.  

        Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

        by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:31:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  flick of a pen? (0+ / 0-)

          You seem to be under the impression that Obama is a monarch. He's not, nor does he think he's one.

          •  Uh, no. (5+ / 0-)

            I am under the CORRECT impression that he can, for example, suspend DADT with an executive order.  And he can.  DOMA, not so much .. but I was talking about people's lives being plowed under by anti-gay laws, not just DOMA.

            Obama is not a monarch, but he does have some power.

            Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

            by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:18:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sorry, but DADT (0+ / 0-)

              is actually a law:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              I'm not aware of any way a president can suspend a law merely by executive order.

              •  You know, there is the allowance that other (5+ / 0-)

                people might know a little bit about this.

                Title 10 (which is where DADT is codified) allows for the suspension of its execution for military needs and purposes.

                I would say having people with a fluency in Arabic is pretty damned important in a militarily relevant sense -- especially given what our military is engaged in doing now.

                He has EVERY ability and justification for doing this.

                It might be a temporary solution -- just until the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over .. but the suspension would provide the justification for voiding the law entirely, legislatively.

                Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

                by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:42:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's my question: (3+ / 0-)

                  as Commander in Chief, can't he just order the armed forces to cease enforcement pending review by the Congress or whatever?

                  Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

                  by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:03:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  TITLE 10 Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    celdd, Levity, Predictor, Ms Johnson, browneyes

                    Section 654, subsection E (And I quote):

                    (e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
                    (1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
                    (2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

                    (emphasis mine).

                    Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

                    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:09:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  wow, great point! And I thought (3+ / 0-)

                      executive branch discretion was only for starting and funding wars without declaring them, ignoring the FISA law, 800 Bush signing statements, torturing Muslims, and things the president wants to do in secret.

                      Haven't you been reading the other comments?  
                      Obama is blameless and powerless!

                      levity defies gravity

                      by Levity on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:20:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  um (0+ / 0-)

                      what about the first clause?

                      (1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and

                      This provision seems to apply to people claiming to be gay in order to get out of military service. So I'm not sure what citing this has to do with whether Obama has the power as president to repeal or suspend a law in total. That power he does not have.

                      •  Uh, the first clause is irrelevent, if the second (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Levity, browneyes

                        gives him the power you say he doesn't have.  Two different subjects, and neither impinges on the other.

                        Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

                        by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:54:24 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  sorry, again (0+ / 0-)

                          did you notice there's an "and" between the two clauses, not an "or"?

                          •  Oh, please. Good point, but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            browneyes

                            in practice, known gay people are retained in the military all the time.  You could just make a blanket determination that all of them were trying to get out of the service by admitting to be gay and it wouldn't be any less nonsensical than saying they were automatically engaging in a "homosexual act" by making a statement.

                            Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

                            by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:50:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree with you in the general principle (0+ / 0-)

                            of course: we need to get rid of DADT. It's an affront to this country's fundamental principles. However, I am also very certain I don't want another president fudging any law, or engaging in tricky maneuvers to circumvent the law (even laws that are wrong and need to be repealed).

                            What you are suggesting sounds perilously like the antics of the Bush administration, although this time in a good cause. But the Bushies thought or claimed what they were doing was for a good cause, too.

                            I just want to see DADT repealed, period.

                          •  Well then we just disagree. Bush asserted (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Levity, browneyes

                            the power to flout laws he didn't like or that were contrary to his executive philosophy.

                            This is wholly different from interpreting a law in a way that favors your position.  It is not contrary to the law to assert that retention is more important than dismissing GLBT people from the military with important skills.  

                            That is demonstrated by the daily actions of the military in this regard.  Some gay people they dismiss, others they retain.

                            Obama in addition to being President is the Commander in Chief.

                            To assert he doesn't have the power to order his underlings in the military to proceed in a certain way, while people UNDER HIS COMMAND do have that power, stretches credulity to the breaking point.

                            Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

                            by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 11:07:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  as I clearly said, it's the ones since January (7+ / 0-)

        who became orphans on Obama's watch, who he might speak out about or try to defend.  Or count.

        One speech of 30 seconds about these new orphans would put every politician who claims to be protecting "the children" on notice.  It would take the kind of courage Evann Orleck-Jetter, 12 year old daughter of gay parents, showed the Senate in Vermont a month ago today.  Her speech tipped the balance that let Vermont override a governor's veto and finally let her parents marry.

        Yes, it's too bad Obama doesn't have the resources of that little girl.

        Obama mentioned hospital visitation rights during the campaign, but now that he's president he's clearly MIA, and that child had to make a difference on her own.  Are you disputing something?

        levity defies gravity

        by Levity on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:35:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wozzle

          blaming Obama, but you make a good point.

          One speech of 30 seconds about these new orphans would put every politician who claims to be protecting "the children" on notice.

          No single person can undue the wrongs of many... Some direction would be nice though!

          AAC: Support local arts

          by jamesia on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:47:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good discussion, all - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            celdd

            Here's my take - we are witnessing a change of heart by the people.  This is not being "dictated" by Washington.  Obama knows this, respects it and wishes to allow it to continue on its own strength.  

            Allow several more states to accept life (not just marriage, IMO) equality - CA, CO, NJ, NY, I believe, are working on it -  then say something like "I've noticed a significant change in the way we regard each other's relationships in this country, and I believe that the Federal government should accept the role granted by the Constitution to protect not only the right to marry but the right to live as all married couples do".

            When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

            by wozzle on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:57:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's nice to say that. And I even understand. (6+ / 0-)

              I suppose where I diverge is people here expecting gay people to be forgiving about this, or even "reasonable" according to this standard.

              We are not throwing rocks in the streets.  By historical civil rights standards we are already being plenty reasonable while other people discuss our basic place in society.

              But, uh, plenty reasonable, seemingly, is never enough.

              And one problem is however reasonable you might be, people always want you to be more reasonable, and that only stops when the nullifcation point is reached and they aren't going to change anything for you at all.  Utterly reasonable by the lights of people on the other side or even the neutral side in any civil rights debate in the final analysis equates to giving you nothing and going on with the status quo.

              I don't blame people for wanting to defend President Obama on this.  Even other GLBT's.

              I however am under no obligation to be forgiving, to be patient, or to be kind to Obama while people I consider to be "mine" are plowed under -- for whatever good analytical (in the minds of some) "reason".  

              I am a Democrat, I vote Democratic, so I don't mind being chastised for it .. but I am not going to care about it, or stop, either ;)  Among other reasons, fair warning is to be given that if they sit on their duffs and don't do anything by the time the next election comes around, I won't be voting Democratic at least when it comes to Federal elections and will be trying to convince as many people as possible not to, either.

              Fair warning is reasonable, too ;)

              Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:07:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  but a single person DID make the difference! (5+ / 0-)

            It just wasn't Obama.

            Thanks to Evann Orleck-Jetter's speech, Vermont's Senate overrode the governor's veto by one vote.  

            No single person can undo the wrongs of many

            Often said, but untrue.

            One child.  One Senator.  History was made.

            How have we been reduced to portraying Obama as powerless?

            levity defies gravity

            by Levity on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:02:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  When? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Boisepoet

    When he decides that the time is right. He has terrific political skills, has a long list of things he wants to change over 8 years, including the expansion of gay rights, but knows that he can't do everything at once. Patience.

    I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

    by doc2 on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:45:53 AM PDT

    •  He could do this today. (9+ / 0-)

      In ten minutes.

      But that would require the will to actually spend a cent of that billions of political capital.

      He's not Big Daddy.

      He's my employee.

      Time for him to get to work.

      So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

      by khereva on Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:48:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can do your job, he'll do his. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver, drache

        He's got a hundred different constituent groups each thinking that their issue could get done in 10 minutes. Rome wasn't built in a day.

        I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

        by doc2 on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:26:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the time it took him to write a puff memo, (7+ / 0-)

          he could have ordered DADT to be abandoned.

          He had the time.

          He just spent it on a meaningless gesture, rather than on actually accomplishing an improvement to the nation.

          But by all means, keep apologizing for his failures to act.

          So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

          by khereva on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:23:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, khereva. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ExStr8, khereva, Predictor

            You speak eloquently on this topic.  I am grateful ;).

            Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

            by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:48:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2

            with 2 wars, the economy tanking and all the midnight rules Bush left Obama should just stop everything he is doing to address DADT.

            In the process picking a fight with both the military complex and the right.

            This is why arm chair generals just tend to annoy me.

            You go do your job, Obama was elected to do his. I presume you voted for him yes?

            Well give him the fucking time to deliver.

            A song about life
            Why aren't you more like Gandhi? Why aren't I?

            by drache on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:24:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He had the time. He *took* the time. (0+ / 0-)

              He just chose to waste it.

              Yes, "with 2 wars, the economy tanking and all the midnight rules Bush left" he had the time to waste, but not the same amount of time to spend.

              I voted for him, and grow increasingly disgusted with him.

              Oh, and my job as a citizen? Includes speaking up when he's fucking up.

              Like right fucking now.

              And when you understand the title "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces," you let me know, ok?

              So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

              by khereva on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:13:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I thought DADT was a congressional action (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2

            and can only be overturned by further congressional action. If you are suggesting he call up Nancy and Harry and order them to start the process, well, he's immersed in the 'game' and perhaps knows how that would be received.

            If you are suggesting he could overturn it by presidential decree, I think you are wrong.

            "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

            by Boisepoet on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:45:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  An order, as Commander in Chief to his (0+ / 0-)

              subordinates.

              Not rocket science.

              Just requires the will and the courage.

              Right now, I'm not seeing either one.

              So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

              by khereva on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:14:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, he could do everything that everybody (0+ / 0-)

            thinks he should do. Just like that.

            Or maybe there are other pressing issues that need to be tackled, and he has a plan in mind to get around to everything in due time. If you were president, you'd do everything all on the same day, and then realize that night that congress has rebelled and that you are actually now powerless to do much of anything.

            Obama can say he supports gay marriage, that would be great, but it wouldn't change the laws in even one state.

            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

            by doc2 on Fri May 08, 2009 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep, gays will always go to the back of the bus. (0+ / 0-)

              And we're NOT talking about gay marriage right now, but about an order the C in C could issue in ten minutes to take effect immediately.

              He had the time to blow smoke up a servicewoman's ass, but couldn't be bothered to take less time to make her problem disappear by ordering her superiors to stop enforcing an unconstitutional, shortsighted, and evil regulation.

              So stick your straw man. He could have done this at any time in the past hundred days.

              But he just can't be bothered to.

              So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

              by khereva on Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:17:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  That is exactly (8+ / 0-)

      what all the white leaders were telling Martin Luther King in 1964:  Patience.

      Why should we be patient in pursuit of our constitutional rights?  Where has "patience" ever gotten any oppressed group?

      I am really enjoying my stimulus package.

      by Kevvboy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:53:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely. (6+ / 0-)

        It is rarely, if ever, the member of the affected minority group at issue that makes this paternalistic argument.

        Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

        by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:13:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reinhold Niebuhr (0+ / 0-)

        Obama ideological mentor - believes in incremental change.  No cart before horse.  And Obama's plate is a little fucking full of bigger fish to fry.  Stop whining.  Try growing up gay 30 or 40 or 100 years ago.  Yes, there is still discrimination, harassment, beatings, but unlike say, most Muslim countries, at least we aren't executed publicly.  

        Incremental change.  It's how shit gets done.

        "Doesn't everybody want to play hopscotch, bake cookies and watch the McLaughlin Group?" - Lisa Simpson

        by OneCharmingBastard on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:58:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL. Right. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevvboy, craigkg, Ms Bluezone, licorice114

          Translation: "Look, Ms. Parks.  We're just asking you to sit at the back of the bus.  But at least you're not a slave.  You've got it good."

          What self-loathing baloney.

          Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

          by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:05:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  While I get your point...... (0+ / 0-)

            Ms J- Girrrlllll please.  I'm a gay man.  I get it.  My point, which seems to get lost in translation, is that we started pushing the marriage thing way too soon - we didn't even have ENDA passed for Jah's sake - and while I think all of us (GLBTQ) would like to have this issue done, decided (in our favor), and over (so we can get back to important shit like the environment and ending our indentured servitude to the corporate overlords), small steps, forcefully implemented, will get us there.  

            In my short life (43), I've seen everything from the American Psychological Association calling us mentally unfit (ended, 1973), Anita Bryant (married to a homosexual, who says there is no karma?), Harvey Milk, AIDS, "Ellen" and "Will & Grace" becoming dinner table fodder for families (less than 30 years after ABC got shit for Billy Crystal as a gay male with a fetish for his mothers clothes on "Soap"), Civil Unions, and major POTUS candidates (and one who we actually elected) backing us up.  My point?  

            It's gonna happen - in our lifetimes - so while we shouldn't back down, we need not act as if it is Never.A.Possibility.

            "Doesn't everybody want to play hopscotch, bake cookies and watch the McLaughlin Group?" - Lisa Simpson

            by OneCharmingBastard on Sat May 09, 2009 at 08:56:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  so did Sandra Day O'Connor - (0+ / 0-)

          once at a forum where she was receiving an award I asked her precisely about the difference between sweeping opinions such as Warrne's in Brown or Jackson's in Barnette versus more narrowly ruled and opined cases, and she strongly opted for the latter, in part because she believed the Court risked its authority were it to issue opinions and decisions that would be flouted and ignored.

          do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

          by teacherken on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:15:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  When can we talk about it? (0+ / 0-)

      Should we consult  The Official DailyKos Obama-Apologist Calendar of When it is Acceptable to Bring up the Topic of Gay Rights

      1. He just got into office for f*ck's sake. Just STFU for now!
      2. It's still early and he has a lot more important things to deal with. Just wait your turn and we'll get around to it later.
      3. We've got midterm elections to win. You can't expect us to address gay rights and run for office at the same time so just STFU! We'll get get to gay rights after the election.
      4. We're exhausted. We just had an election. The new Congress hasn't even started yet. Just lay off on the "gay rights" stuff til later.
      5. We have to get Obama re-elected.  Presidential elections take up the full two years of the cycle and you can't expect Obama to kowtow to left wing GLBT activist extremists and expect win moderate votes, so just STFU!
      6. We just won re-election. Can you please just let us bask in the glow of that until after the inauguration?
      7. This Obama's last chance to really govern. We have real issues to deal with without making it seem we're beholden to some fringe special interest extremists like the GLBT community.
      8. Why are y'all just bring up gay rights now in the 6th year of President Obama's term? You guys didn't work for it and don't deserve to have your issues addressed on your terms. Besides, we haven't yet had a blue ribbon commission that will examine the issue for a year and issue a report, which will be followed by a peer reviewed study of the ramifications, which will be followed by a another commission which will examine the differences between the first commission report and the study. After that commission's report is studied, we'll make a recommendation to the President who will then have to have his advisors study the issue for a while. At that point, the President may add the recommendation to his State of the Union address. So give us another three years even though we're only here only have one left.
      9. The commission is still doing its work behind closed doors, so don't talk about gay rights at all. We have another Presidential election to win and we can't be seen as being for gay rights in a Presidential election. Just STFU!
      10. Hey GLBT activists, we're on our way out. Half the President's advisors have already left for jobs in the private sector, Congress has adjourned until the new Congress begins. We are complete and utter powerless lame ducks. What can the Obama Administration do for you? We're here to help.

      There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

      by craigkg on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:14:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama should watch the debate in the Maine House (5+ / 0-)

    that happened just two days ago - he can find it here.

  •  I made another Article IV argument (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamesia, Predictor, KentuckyKat

    here, on Wednesday.

    You are indeed correct that right wing jurists will routinely twist themselves into pretzels to avoid reading the plain language of a thing and apply it to the marriage equality debate, and both Loving V. Virginia and FF&C are no exception.

    Good diary, though.

    There is also the 9th Amendment to consider.  And Due Process.  And the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association.

    Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:19:39 AM PDT

  •  Maybe he doesn't want to step on states? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chumley

    The states are doing a great job of this right now. The widespread legalization of gay marriage is continuing at a breakneck pace. If a dozen states legalize gay marriage, and a dozen more recognize those marriages, it will be that much easier to have something nationwide. The key is letting the legislative branches legalize gay marriage, then let a few state-level amendments get voted down, and then the cat will well and truly be out of the bag.

    The civil rights act wasn't passed in a day.

  •  Good new history of antimiscegenation laws, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamesia, KentuckyKat

    What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, makes clear how the same arguments now used against same-sex marriage were once used against mixed-race marriages.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:40:54 AM PDT

  •  Oh, and in re: the "Give him time" argument (8+ / 0-)

    that is bandied about a lot around these here parts.

    Yes, President Obama and the Democratic Congress deserve time to begin addressing gay rights issues in a systematic way.

    But, oh, around next year this time, time will be up.

    You cannot be running a campaign for the next election and come to gay people with empty hands.

    Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:41:13 AM PDT

  •  Fantastic diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    celdd, emsprater, Ms Johnson

    Thank you.

    In particular, I never considered that if being gay in the military is seen as a security threat, why then do we ally with countries that allow openly gay members? That point elucidates the concept very well. However, I think DADT will be repealed soon. Progressives & Independents realize it's just a silly law, and conservatives will find a few less than altruistic reasons to support its repeal.

    On marriage equality, I'd much prefer the route of Congressional approval, taken by Maine. It would be nice to see some direction from a man I campaigned hard to ensure won, yet.

    AAC: Support local arts

    by jamesia on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:43:25 AM PDT

  •  Obama will not do a single thing (5+ / 0-)

    for gay people until January 2013.  If then.

    All those who supported HRC last year knew that she was better on this question than Obama.

    I still think he'll be a great president, but on two of my pet issues:  gay marriage and Katrina recovery - he is kind of a weak sister.

    I am really enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:52:40 AM PDT

    •  still a sore loser over the primiaries? nt (0+ / 0-)

      A song about life
      Why aren't you more like Gandhi? Why aren't I?

      by drache on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:25:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not in the least. (0+ / 0-)

        I have supported him with contributions, letters, petitions, etc.  I have nothing to apologize for.

        But he aint perfect.  You think he is?

        I am really enjoying my stimulus package.

        by Kevvboy on Sat May 09, 2009 at 03:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  which is why you are still talking about HRC? (0+ / 0-)

          tell me when did she promise to repeal DADT?

          Would she have written a hand written letter to a gay solider promising as much?

          I doubt it.

          I hardly think Obama is perfect but you are shifting and deflecting.

          I find it curious that you are in an offhand manner trying to revive the primary wars of 2007.

          A song about life
          Why aren't you more like Gandhi? Why aren't I?

          by drache on Sat May 09, 2009 at 08:07:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo! (0+ / 0-)

      If (and when) he gets to 2013, THEN we get all of our liberal/progressive social issues dealt with - by that time, the horse will not only have left the barn at even more state levels, but the ascent of the next generation into America culture and life will make this particular issue (opposition to gay marriage) increasingly irrelevant - provided the rapture thing doesn't happen on 12/21/12, I'd dare call it a slam-dunk.

      Should the aforementioned rapture occur, I'll be the one with the other godless sodomites in the snappy sack-cloth chaps and harness........

      "Doesn't everybody want to play hopscotch, bake cookies and watch the McLaughlin Group?" - Lisa Simpson

      by OneCharmingBastard on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:50:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Eugene Robinson. (10+ / 0-)

    National treasure. He really is.

    Since Prop 8, I've noticed a very clear and decided increase in advocacy for gay rights from liberal Black commentators, ranging from Al Sharpton to Eugene Robinson and covering many, many others (I'm not sure what that is a scale of!). I think they were always supporters, but either I've been noticing their support more or they've been more vocal about it, or both.

    More generally, the issue seems to have taken on a new urgency to people and for that I am grateful. Before there was a sense that gay marriage was inevitable, someday, so don't get too worked up. And now there seems to be more of a sense that it is inevitable as long as people speak up loudly and clearly.

    •  After the election, when the factions that pushed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brklyngrl

      .... for passage of proposition 8 in California were in damage control mode, they had their pr people all over the blogosphere spreading the false idea that it passed here because "the black people voted for it"  while they were denying that the LDS church & members gave a huge amount of money and work to push discrimination against another minority. They are still doing this on a lot of the conservative facebook and any other site where there are right wing, militant conservatives running around trying to still create religious strife because it dovetails so nicely with the LDS tendancy to want to be a martyr to the cause.

      Before the 2008 election, I was pretty much neutral on certain religious denominations, other than the one that I had had personal negative experiences with, now that I see what they are willing to do to keep their pet candidates in office, I'm understanding the cynicism and outright loathing that they generate. It's not all the people, most of them just go along to get along and let the vocal minority do their evil work for them.  But that vocal minority is the extremists, and they have nowhere to go with this but to keep doing it.  Witness the continued nonsense with "Obama is a Muslim, Marxist, Not a US Citizen," etc.

      Anyway, what I am getting to is that I hope that African Amercans recognized that we really are in this all together after that outrageous attempt to scapegoat them for the bleep - up activities of the LDS church and prop 8.  I've tried to do my share of going after that nasty, nasty misconception.

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:52:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like Correta Scott King's take on it: (8+ / 0-)

    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

    "I much prefer the sharpest criticism of one man than the thoughtless approval of the masses." - Johannes Kepler

    by Glasnost on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:00:30 AM PDT

  •  Great diary. If I hear one more "give him time" (9+ / 0-)

    argument, my fucking head is going to explode.  For real.  And not because I labor under the impression that everything can be done right this second, but because, implicit in that argument, is the idea that we have to be cautious about how we address "controversial" issues like DADT, etc. for fear of riling up with Paleolithic Right.  Fuck them and fuck you, too, if that's your position.  

    We're not talking about a fucking commemorative stamp.  We're talking about civil rights being denied to an entire group of people. Mr. Robinson is correct: it's time we have some leadership on these issues with the urgency they require.  

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:09:43 AM PDT

  •  so, between reading this diary & budhy's (4+ / 0-)

    I'm feeling ready to be unreasonable on the issue of really, truly equal rights for all Americans.

  •  personally (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ms Johnson, KroneckerD

    full equality can't come soon enough.  But really, why would Obama interject at this point?  Have your pulse on the issue.  Eventually the momentum that is STILL BUILDING on this issue will ride through Congress.  But moving in Congress while the momentum is already full force in New Hampshire, New York, and other places could derail the momentum we have right now.  

    Why?  Just look at the numbers nationally.  They are growing. But still not overwhelmingly in our favor. If suddenly Utah gets a reason to be vocal about the issue, how does that affect how voters and legislators in New York act?  Right now the debate is one sided.  Let's leave it there until the momentum hits its full stride.  I don't think it is there yet.

    The question isn't about Obama's popularity.  It is about letting the popularity of equality for the LGBT community grow into its own.  Just my two cents on strategy.  If things are going fine without you needing to chime in, then chiming in for chiming ins sake is not usually good strategy.

    •  This is a reasonable political argument. (9+ / 0-)

      And if we were talking about a question of whether to name the federal courthouse in San Francisco after Harvey Milk, I might agree with you.  But the issue goes to a (supposedly) core American value: equality under the law.  People are fired everyday in this country because they're gay.  Dismissed from the U.S. military.  Denied all manner of other rights, privileges, and benefits because of who they are.  Sometimes a little outrage is appropriate.  This is one of them.  

      Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

      by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:24:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you can't suspend strategy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ms Johnson

        Outrage is fine.  but don't lose your head for it.  I hope you didn't wait until now to get outraged!

        •  Strategy is fine, too. (4+ / 0-)

          But that shouldn't prevent the President from saying, at every possible opportunity, "DADT is horseshit" (or words to that effect) or "It's time for full marriage rights for all Americans" (which I know he won't because (forgive me) he's politically chicken).  He has the bully pulpit.  He can show leadership rhetorically by just saying these laws reflected poorly on our alleged love of freedom, etc.

          Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

          by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:40:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We've already won on this issue (0+ / 0-)

      I think what Obama is really saying is that, at the grassroots level, among people under about 50, the game is over. People who believe in GLBT equality have already won.

      John McCain's own daughter is out there pointing out that this is a stupid issue for the GOP, and we know that, obviously, internally, even the Dubya people personally have no problem whatsoever with GLBT marriage. I haven't seen any stories about the Cheneys disowning their grandchild, for example.

      The very best lobbying for GLBT marriage is GLBT couples walking through neighborhoods with their gorgeous children, and going to ballet recitals and school plays featuring their gorgeous children. That kind of lobbying is going now throughout America, every day of the week.

      But, if Obama turns this issue into a political issue in Washington right now, then, first, he could end up diverting political mojo that has to go into doing things that are as critical to GLBT people as to anyone else, such as keeping the economy, the environment and civilization as we know it from collapsing.

      Another problem is that, if he makes GLBT marriage the focus of attention, then suddenly the Republican lobbyists will use that issue to try to take down Obama. Not because they are hostile to GLBT marriage -- maybe many of those Republican lobbyists are involved in their own happy GLBT relationships -- but because it's a club to bang Obama over the head with, and it IS about an issue that wingnut members of Congress would have an easy time using as a club.

      Suddenly, Obama could reactivate a game that we've already won and turn it into a loss.

      Even if Obama eventually signed a GLBT marriage bill into law, the wingnuts could make a somewhat reasonable case that Democrats had rammed the bill down everyone's throat because they simply had a solid majority in the Senate for a few months.

      But if Obama waits a little, maybe a GLBT marriage bill will percolate up from Congress -- with a couple of Republican cosponsors -- and then Obama could a bill into a law without the bill becoming "I Hate Obama" lightning rod bill.

  •  The best we are going to get out of Obama is on (5+ / 0-)

    .... some issues, he will just be MIA and not in the way.

    Sorry, won't be a popular opinion on this site, but it's the honest truth.  He met with Newt Gingrich at the WH and Newtie comes out beaming and prattling about how happy he is about "charter schools."

    Folks, that's white code for taking your tax dollars and not only racially segregating schools, but religiously segregating them also by letting them be run by private companies in public buildings, companies that will only hire teachers of certain "beliefs."

    Hopefully some school districts can fend the scavengers off.  Would really not like to see Obama next running around the country pushing chartered schools, if you get my drift.

    "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:31:51 AM PDT

    •  I think the proper .. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanRiverCanyon, Predictor

      context is  'that's code', not 'that's white code'.

      Attaching it to a race by color is the same when done from either side.

      The person who has lost the ability to trust based on the actions of the party no longer trusted is not the one who has to do the work for restoration.

      by emsprater on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:36:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, could have worded that better (0+ / 0-)

        .... it's still sorta early here.  When Newt says it, he's appealing to his target demographic, when somebody like Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento says it, it would be to his.

        I still find it extremely disconcerting. The wealthy in our country already have the opportunity to send their children to the private school of their choice.  These charter school businesses come into these good school districts, and threaten to sue the school boards with a team of deep pocket lawyers if they don't cooperate, it's nothing more than extortion, and some of the Dems are willing to go along with it.

        "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

        by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:03:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stop hijacking the thread. nt (0+ / 0-)
          •  ???? quit trolling, the diary author is a teacher (0+ / 0-)

            .... and has written with a high level of first hand knowledge and expertise on how he thinks education policy, implemented, can be improved and harmed by various proposals in the current Democratic administration.  I merely report my local observations. I really think some school board members do an absolutely outstanding job of requiring these charter business entities to provide proof instead of conjecture that their private schools would provide a better product and not lead to taxpayers' funds being used to stealthily provide religious education.  

            "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

            by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri May 08, 2009 at 11:12:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The guy has a lot on his plate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, kefauver

    but its working out as a state by state issue slowly but surely. No matter what Obama does the states will always have the ability to set their own terms. Only the will of the people, such as in New England, can make the difference.

  •  Since Obama doesn't believe in gay marriage (0+ / 0-)

    he isn't MIA at all.  If Obama believed in gay marriage and wasn't saying anything than he would be MIA but since he does not he really doesn't have to way in on what is appropriately a state matter.

    "Because we won...we have to win." Obama - 6/6/08. WELL WE DID IT!!! 11/4/08

    by Drdemocrat on Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:34:55 AM PDT

  •  Obama's lack of leadership here is disturbing (9+ / 0-)

    Obama's lack of leadership on gay issues has certainly been disappointing to me, verging on appalling. I understand that he has a lot on his plate, but wasn't it candidate Obama himself who talked about the need for a president to multi-task? Obama's strategy of dealing with the rights of GLBT Americans solely in terms of cold political calculations, rather than providing any moral or ethical leadership to stand up for what is right, seems to be the same path that President Clinton took, with disastrous results.

  •  Don't want to be a jerk (0+ / 0-)

    Obama is not going to push any gay or abortion issues. Sorry, but he isn't going to waste his political capital on this.

    He is not going to get drawn into a culture war at the expense of the economy, healthcare, foregin policy, education and environment.

    Obama is going to let the activists fight this out on the state level.

    Obama is not MIA, or missing the boat, this is flat out not on his agenda. He isn't going to let culture wars about take down his administration.

    There is a lot of distrust in the gay community about Obama, and there should be. He isn't anti-gay marriage, but like with the Freedom of Choice act, it isn't a legislative priority.

    If people who feel strongly about gay marriage thought Obama was going to help in the fight, they were gravely mistaken. He is with you, but, it isn't worth the political price has to pay.

    That's the hard truth.

    I hate to say it, but at this time, I am with being MIA. We just got control, now is not the time for a culture war. I am sorry, it's politics. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your principles.

    •  the "culture wars" are not what they were (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg, AndyS In Colorado, Predictor

      Obama is operating on an old paradigm about gay issues that is rooted in the Clinton era, which is not surprising since his staff is filled with Clinton folks.  As Robinson notes in his column, this country has moved forward at an amazing speed on gay marriage and other GLBT issues over the past 10 years.  When will Obama make an utterance on gay marriage?  Once all 50 states have approved it?  

    •  I feel strongly about gay marriage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boisepoet

      but I understand what he's doing. I think there are a number of issues right now that we have the opportunity to move forward.  Not because Obama is going to lead the charge but because we're right and because we have a president who won't use the power of office to block us.  He's not a freaking monarch who can just decree marriage equality.  It would be a fight that the righties could bring their whole base in on and derail the conversation about everything else.  And no, that doesn't mean acting out of fear of their stupid base, it means being smart enough to beat them on many fronts at once by not playing their game.  

      Of course, I live in Iowa so I'm feeling a little spoiled in this regard right now.  

      "There must be a penalty for doing what George W Bush and those who pulled his strings have done. Or it will probably be done again, and worse."

      by Sun dog on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:19:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ..sacrifice your principles and my rights, right? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg, AndyS In Colorado

      I'm having a hard time with sacrificing my rights for his agenda or your political wish list.

      This is a matter of equality under the law, not a matter of convenience.

      Gay Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1

      by skip945 on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:35:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  watching Lt Choi and Rep Sestak on Rachels (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, davidkc

    Show, I get the feeling that the DADT policy will fall by the yrs end after the economic crises has stabilized an by 2010 the gay marrriage thing will be done with. It will be legalized and will be a non issue. Its inevitable. Obama will adress it when he thinks its time. Its politics. Its frustrating I know but it will be done

  •  I am the same way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    craigkg, Predictor

    Normally accused of being "wishy washy" ala Charlie Brown with my ability to see both sides of issues and all the shades of gray.

    But not on gay marriage. Black and white. Passionately KNOW I am right. Have a truly hard time listening with respect to anyone trying to explain the other side. I. Just. Can't. Ask my boyfriend :-) He's seen me go ballistic over this.

    I love Eugene!

  •  Obama has always been opposed to gay marriage (0+ / 0-)

    He campaigned that way. So this diary is dishonest.

    •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

      As a candidate for the Illinois state senate in 1996, candidate Obama was a supporter of same sex marriage. The Windy City Times has the candidate questionnaire that proves it. He's flipped his position from one of equality to one of separate but "equal."

      There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

      by craigkg on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:09:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Robison is right but does not take it far enough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8

    The Irish, Women, Blacks, Gays and so on the history of our nation has been a painful but beautiful march to a more perfect union.

    Gays are just the latest name in the same dance.

    The good news is it seems like we are at least learning from our mistakes.

    A song about life
    Why aren't you more like Gandhi? Why aren't I?

    by drache on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:21:45 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad you framed it that way, frankly. (0+ / 0-)

    Because you refer to the STATES not denying.

    And it is exactly the states who are coming up, one by one, and doing the right thing.  And until what the states ARE doing makes it to the Supreme Court, it's a state issue.

    What needs to happen, is each state now has to challenge an existing law on their own books that's against gay marriage.  They need to sue.  That's how most of the present states got it straight (no pun intended).

    You want to see backlash?  You want to give the GOP a NATIONAL issue they can really sink their teeth into?  Remember 2004?  Bush won partly because Rove got neanderthals to the polls on this exact issue.

    Let the states handle this.  That's exactly what Obama's doing.  And he's right.

    The LGBT community has weighted FOREVER for this to happen.  It's now happening.  Don't fuck it up.


    We need to get back to bedrock American values like torture and secession. - Josh Marshall

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:22:56 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary, teacherken. You are indeed (0+ / 0-)

    the teacher. I hope that somehow this diary could find it's way to President Obama's desk.

    "I haz thinkz, therefore I iz."

    by Rumarhazzit on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:25:47 AM PDT

  •  Great diary - thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    This is one area where I would like to see Obama do more.  

    "Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Blue VA on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:28:03 AM PDT

  •  Hey - did you see this? (0+ / 0-)

    In the letter, Obama wrote that he is "committed to changing our current policy" but that "it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action)."

    Obama sends handwritten letter to gay soldier ousted from the military promising to repeal DADT.

    "Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Blue VA on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:39:12 AM PDT

  •  I hate to say it, but... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Inland, Therapy
    1. Obama's hands are more than full.
    1. Obama speaking up on it would help fire up a crippled, demoralized, and dysfunctional GOP at at time when he has LOTS of things to get past the Party of No.
    1. Obama speaking up is not likely to actually speed up the process at either the state or federal level. The sort of universal lifting you're talking about here will require a Supreme Court decision, whenever they get around to it, which will be many years after the rest of America does, if history is any indicator.
    1. Even without Obama's help, we're making terrific progress on this issue. Marriage equality is now being LEGISLATED in many states. No, we're not going to get it in Alabama without a SCOTUS decision, but let's take the progress we can get.
    1. Public opinion is turning around nicely on the issue.

    Yeah, I'd like to see Obama speak up too.  But I don't think it would be helpful.

    Your tax dollars pay for black helicopters

    by Orbital Mind Control Lasers on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:41:48 AM PDT

    •  We will take what we get, and push for more. (0+ / 0-)

      That's how civil rights struggles work.  They don't work by taking what you already have and becoming silent.

      Your opinion that it wouldn't be helpful is noted, but that's all it is, an opinion.  That's not an attack, by the way, it's an observation.

      It is just as likely from my point of view that Obama can wield gay rights (if done intelligently) as a club to further cripple the far right as opposed to empowering them.  This being not 1994, it is a little strange to me to assume that the dynamic that has prevailed recently would not continue.

      I give Obama, seemingly, more credit than many of his most ardent defenders do in that I believe he can be intelligent about this and still honor his promises which were made before the election to the GLBT community.

      And that not honoring such promises (assuming that happens) would be politically damaging in ways that go far beyond the GLBT community.

      Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:54:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I fully support gay marriage but... (0+ / 0-)

    I think it's understandable Obama won't tackle this during his first term.

    We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ~Richard Dawkins

    by Therapy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 08:08:34 AM PDT

  •  Why would this administration push for a change? (0+ / 0-)

    I understand that same sex marriage is important to some.  Even more important is changing the way culture views homosexuality.  Gays want Americans to see it as a morally acceptable alternative and a basic human right, yet the vast majority still views homosexuality as an aberration of nature.  Morals from the beginning of recorded history, unprecedented unity of religious teaching and lessons from nature itself are deeply ingrained.  
    To some the argument is over and homosexual behavior should be viewed as an acceptable alternative lifestyle without limits.  But this is not the case with the majority of Americans and same sex marriage is not supported by the traditional base of the Democratic Party.  The black church, Hispanic immigrants, European immigrants, blue collar union workers, housewives and the majority of those who are affiliated with any religious organization still view homosexual behavior as unnatural.  They do not "hate" gays but they understand the difference between orientation and behavior.  
    This President faces huge challenges in regards to our two wars, worldwide economic collapse, loss of international moral authority and a runaway unfair and deadly health care crisis.  Just as in the election, he needs the support of all Democrats.  Many progressives do not believe in religion, yet shared goals of moderate and conservative Democrats make it necessary to work together for peace and justice.  Many Democrats of deep religious faith do not support unrestricted abortion, but they understand the need for economic progress to reduce the number of abortions.  Likewise many Democrats of faith do not personally approve of openly gay behavior, yet they understand the concept of privacy and the freedom to make decisions contrary to what they believe.  They do not "hate gays," but cannot approve of all moral choices.  
    If true hardwired homosexuals make up about 10% of the population, then those that want to commit to marriage represent a much smaller subset.  Knowing the tremendous effort and political capital necessary to change laws, why would this administration push for a change?  

    •  Because it's right. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ms Bluezone

      The same arguments you make were made, in some form, to justify slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation, no political and property rights for women, among others.  In the 1950s, for example, well-meaning "Christians" stood in the pulpits of churches all around this country and railed against civil rights legislation because it disturbed "God's plan" for a society in which the races where to be kept separate.  To allow white and blacks to marry would result in "mongrel race" of which God clearly does not approve.  

      Respectfully, you're homophobic.  I don't mean that as an attack.  But your comment proves it:

      Gays want Americans to see it as a morally acceptable alternative and a basic human right, yet the vast majority still views homosexuality as an aberration of nature.

      Says who?

      If true hardwired homosexuals  . . .

      What other kind is there?  Those that choose it?

      The black church, Hispanic immigrants, European immigrants, blue collar union workers, housewives and the majority of those who are affiliated with any religious organization still view homosexual behavior as unnatural.

      That one is simply a lie.  That's what you believe.  So to bolster you're position, like conservatives, you argue that you're part of some great cultural majority struggling mightily against the moral decay of America.  But, you're not. Are there people in each of these groups that disapprove of homosexuality?  Sure.  But there are many that don't.  And those that do are homophobic, like you.  If you have some data to support your conclusory statement that each of these groups is monolithically opposed to homosexuality, I would be interested in seeing it. You can't.  But even if you could, we don't make decisions about to whom to extend basic civil rights based on the religious dogma and "values" of another group.  If we did, blacks would still be in the fields and women pregnant and in the kitchen.

      I'm afraid you miss the point of this debate entirely.  

      Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

      by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:34:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it is counterproductive to label and liable (0+ / 0-)

        Awful things have been done in the name of religion.  Suspected witches burned at the stake, the inquisition and crusades are just a few.  But that doesn’t mean that everything espoused by Christianity is wrong.  In fact the push for racial civil rights and women suffrage both came out of our religious convictions.  Black civil rights leaders with very few exceptions are insulted at the comparison between the American civil rights movement and the push for same sex marriage.  Just go back and read the outrage of gays when blacks did not support Prop A in California.

        Homophobic?  The word "phobic" indicates an irrational fear.  I have no fear of gays.  I don’t hate or bear any ill will towards gays.  But I do think it is irrational to start calling names, and it is counterproductive to label and liable those that support you 80% of the time because there is one area of disagreement.  

        Finally, is there anything other than "hardwired homosexuals?"  Sure, there are bi-sexuals.  There are those who were heterosexual for most of their life and suddenly discovered that they were gay.  (Ok, I’ll give you that some were living a lie)  Then there are always those like Anne Heche, who once were gay and then married a member of the opposite sex.  Truthfully sexual orientation is a complicated matter that is beyond my understanding.  While I may form a personal judgment, I will defend your right to be wrong, and I reserve the right to change my opinion.  

        But for now the same sex marriage push is a distraction we do not need.

  •  We'll have to agree to disagree. (0+ / 0-)

    Your definition of homophobia is inaccurate. According to Merriam-Webster, homophobia is:

    irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

    The phenomomen is not limited to fear.  So, however uncomfortable it may make AA church leaders or others, opposition to or apathy for the rights of gay people based on their sexual orientation is, in fact, homophobia.  If people don't want to be "labeled" homophobic, they shouldn't act that way.  Just like civil rights opponents who didn't want to be labeled "racists," shouldn't have acted in the ways they did.

    The most telling part of your rebuttal is this:

    But for now the same sex marriage push is a distraction we do not need.

    No.  It's a "distraction" that you don't need.  For gay and lesbian people who's families have not received full legal recognition and the rights and benefits that come with it, it is most assuredly needed.  That your disapproval of homosexuals prevents you from valuing their families as you do others is very sad.  And how ironic that members of other minority groups are being used to perpetuate the paternalistic pats on the head and requests to "wait just a little longer" that are being given gay Americans when, were the shoe on the other foot, those same people would be screaming "no justice, no peace."

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Fri May 08, 2009 at 01:29:41 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, Kimberley, wozzle, paradox, Cederico, Bill in Portland Maine, hannah, pucknomad, alisonk, ScientistMom in NY, tnichlsn, dengre, bellatrys, lysias, chicagochristianleft, sobermom, SallyCat, Norwegian Chef, annrose, ehavenot, peace voter, roses, khloemi, Larry Bailey, michael1104, DoctorScience, wader, Levity, WV Democrat, tomjones, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, SanDiegoDem, Leaves on the Current, homogenius, furi kuri, faithfull, TexMex, davidkc, julifolo, Fabian, ExStr8, radarlady, JanetT in MD, DarlingtonD, PBen, craigkg, FlyWhy555, Laurence Lewis, bobbycjr, jcitybone, jabbausaf, SheriffBart, mph2005, grothenberger, Beezzley, Spathiphyllum, sgary, SSMir, rserven, ballybough, gwilson, Mad Biologist, VolvoDrivingLiberal, kestrel9000, fiddler crabby, Partially Impartial, Farradin, wild hair, plf515, AndyS In Colorado, rsie, Hedwig, mapman, AmericanRiverCanyon, One Pissed Off Liberal, zelbinion, anotherdemocrat, khereva, Nespolo, steamkettle, jamesia, Killer of Sacred Cows, Ken in Tex, Moderation, Rumarhazzit, leonard145b, JML9999, cloudbustingkid, Predictor, Ms Johnson, Neon Mama, roycej, gundyj, Scioto, brklyngrl, scooter in brooklyn, brooklynbadboy, VL Baker, Therapy, weddedgay, gildareed, envwq, luckylizard, Athenocles, Guadalupe59, 1BQ, smellybeast, Darmok, ChrisG7, Pender, Chino Blanco, Partisan Progressive, h bridges, FrugalGranny, a girl in MI, DefendOurConstitution, elziax, borndem, soms, billssha, Joeytj, CityLightsLover, ravenlore, Sarbec, NCrissieB, BigVegan, commonmass, bperk, miss SPED, GreenDog, Obamajority, fidellio, stunzeed, KentuckyKat, Eddie L, Anne933, beverlywoods, ricardomath, DudleyMason, Xtatic, Joshish, SuperBowlXX, I love OCD, carabeth, croyal, ardyess, LousyDeemo, kevin k, skip945, Civil Writes Activist, Ms Bluezone, KVoimakas, impygirl, merrily1000, dakinishir, sum quod eris, Curiosity

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site