Skip to main content

I'm sure this will quell rising LGBT anger with the administration...

Reacting to a rising tide of anger from gay and lesbian supporters at a series of slights and deferred promises, President Obama will tomorrow extend some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

The move, which begins to mirror the policy of many large corporations, will have an immediate effect for many workers, but it is a deeply reactive response to a core Democratic group whose concerns have been festering for six months. The presidential memorandum  -- scheduled for signing tomorrow at 5:45 p.m., may in the short term, give Joe Biden something positive to say at a June 25 fundraiser that has seen prominent guests drop out, a host sharply attack the administration, and which is expected to be marked by protests.

However, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex couples, so the benefits are more likely to be marginal -- like relocation assistance.

Yup. Relocation assistance ought to do it! Wait, you mean it's not?

Pam Spaulding:

No one is buying a partner benefit plan that doesn't include health insurance, for god's sake. Will he announce an effort to send Congress something to act on? Uh, keep dreaming - his DOJ just wrote up a brief that uses defenses against incest and underage marriage to claim our relationships are unworthy of equal treatment under the law. They can't unring that bell.

Michelangelo Signorile:

Scrambling to do damage control re: the DOMA brief the Obama administration is throwing us a pathetic bone.

John Aravosis:

So, because of Obama's inaction on his main presidential campaign promises to our community - DOMA and DADT - we have a scenario in which gays will get fewer benefits than their straight colleagues, and some gay federal employees will get benefits (civilians) while others (military) will not. See how complicated it gets to do anything when you fail to keep your basic promises?

I guess no one could've ever predicted that relocation assistance wasn't going to be enough to placate those fighting for equal treatment under the law. I admit it, it totally caught me by surprise.

Yes, there's a lot on Obama's plate. But apparently, people in his administration have the time to write an insulting and denigrating legal brief in defense of bigoted legislation. As the NY Times said,

The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction — or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.

But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (which, by the way, totally failed to protect Sen. Jon Ensign's marriage). That anger is well justified.

The DNC needs to reschedule next week's gay fundraiser until after the administration gets its act together on its plan for gay rights. I'm pretty confident the administration eventually will, but until it does, out of simple common courtesy, it should refrain from treating the gay community like an ATM.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:16 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

    •  But not if you are in the military. (27+ / 0-)

      Whether this covers other branches like the Post Office is also unknown.

      •  For those who have argued these past few (58+ / 0-)

        months that gay people should "wait our turn", this is what I have to say to you:

        Fine. Good luck with "your" priorities.

        Example: Health care is a big thing around these Daily Kos parts lately. However, my husband and I are fucked either way with national health care because we won't be recognized by a federal plan due to DOMA. Unless DOMA's repealed, national health care means jack shit to me.

        So yea, I don't have time for "your" priorities if "you" don't have time for mine.

        President Barack Obama - #44 - "Backstabber of Gays"-In-Chief

        by Yalin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:25:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pressure the right place : Congress. (19+ / 0-)

          DOMA was enacted by Congress and it can be repealed by Congress.

          Dems own Congress now, so the time may never be better.

          Not a lot of drafting to fret over or to debate: "We hereby rescind DOMA and declare it dead, dead, dead".

          There's even a bipartisan angle (Don't know that many Republicans would be principled enough to pick it up):

          DOMA is an unwarranted Federal intrusion into an area traditionally regulated by the states.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:29:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I understand, but that is not (6+ / 0-)

          useful.  There are many straight allies on marrigage equality and other GLBT issues, just as there are many gay allies on EFCA, health care reform, and other issues.  The key is building alliances that succeed for all, not in petulently punishing your allies.  

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

          by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:31:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allies are people who work with you, not tell you (16+ / 0-)

            to get to the back of the bus.

            I support gay allies. The rest, not so much. Those are the people who I say "good luck" to.

            President Barack Obama - #44 - "Backstabber of Gays"-In-Chief

            by Yalin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:33:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  At what point is it okay to shatter alliances? (14+ / 0-)

            If so-called allies pay only lip service to crucial battles to a community within the alliance, how long can one expect the alliance to hold firm?

            As Kos noted, the GLBT community has become increasingly frustrated by the inaction by the Obama administration on key issues impacting the community. But it's become incensed over the offensive hypocrisy of the DOJ argument in favor of DOMA and this latest tossing of a worthless bone as a symbol of its commitment to equality for the GLBT community.

            "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

            by rontun on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:39:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We are talking past (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, Othniel, Predictor

              each other.  I am speaking of a progressive coalition on many issues.  You seem to be speaking of the Obama adminstration.  They are not the same thing.

              Fine with me if you walk away from Obama, although I am not going to do so.  

              Keeping your eye on the prize, however, suggests that Gay Separatism is not likely going to achive change.  Put bluntly, we all need allies on various progressive causes.

              But that said, it's certainly your right to explore the best means you can find to create change.  If disallying from all other issues is your way, go for it.

              Shatter the alliance.  It's a cost/benefit analysis that only you can make.

              You can trash my causes and even oppose them, and I'll still support marriage equality because it is morally right as I see it (and I'm straight).  

                   

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

              by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:45:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Mutual Respect (9+ / 0-)

                has to me been the hallmark of the Democratic Party, until it was deliberately attacked by Nixon and those who sought Republican Domination.  

                I wish everyone on kos could have been on what is now the Ann Richards bridge when Austin African-Americans and GLBT folk (and those who are both) counter-protested a KKK rally directed at securing passage of the Texas anti-marriage amendment.

                Or when I watched Democrats rise on the House floor to oppose the amendment in all of our diversity.

                Or when all of Austin expressed shock that African-American State Senator Rodney Ellis received Death Threats for leading the opposition to the amendment in the State Senate.

                We must recover this mutual respect if we are to be able to go forward together.  My anger is not so much directed at the President as it is at the Cowards who serve as Paid Consultants in the party who are always looking for any group of us to throw under the bus.

                I must remind all of us that the people with whom the President is losing credibility because of the DOMA brief are those who voted for him, but initially had been Bush supporters citing Bush's loyalty as a character trait.  That loyalty was not really there.  But it is an attribute people crave, and a large part of what brought NASCAR, NC and VA into the blue column.  If he abandons Teh Gays so easily, who worked, hoped, voted and donated, they must ask, "How long until he also abandons me?"

                His credibility with such folk will tank even faster with every lame proposal to stop the bleeding.  Obama said he would tell the truth.  I still trust the President, but if he cannot still the voices of cowardice in his administration I cannot much longer hold the level of trust I now have.  Nor will the NASCAR voters, nor the good folk of VA and NC.  

                I serve as the scapegoat thrown under the bus quite often as an openly Gay Male Southern Trial Lawyer. It does hurt a tad less when the trial lawyer who I chose to be is the one sacrificed. The sacrifice of the Gay Man I was born to be is a little harder to bear.

                This whole issue is going to explode when we see the Right quoting the DOMA brief (written by a rogue elephant buried in DOJ) to keep GLBT folk and our children out of the definition of families in the health care reform proposals.  But then why should our children be able to access the health care benefits of both their Fathers?  After these kids know their relative unimportance in America by now, surely.

                We are asking Mr. President, Please Do Tell.

                by Othniel on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:23:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody's talking about trashing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                musing85

                causes that they would otherwise support. However, everyone's time and resources are limited. It's only fair for the glbt community to re-evaluate where it expends its efforts. I suspect much less in 2010 and 2012 furthering the interests of the Democratic Party insiders and much more furthering our own.

          •  Allies also don't compare GLBT homes & marriages (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie, gmb, corvo, Predictor, rejoice, Yalin

            to incest and child molestation.

            Did anyone listen to me when I said President Obama's "faith" and adherence to Xtian wingers (like anti-gay performer Donnie McClurkin) was a problem?  Not many...and look where we are.

            Three be the things I shall never attain: Envy, Content, and sufficient champagne. --Dorothy Parker

            by M Sullivan on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:40:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We are talking past each other. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, Predictor

              I am not Obama and I am speaking of a progressive coalition (blue/green/rainbow).

              Support this administration or not.  I am talking about making change.  You arre talking about Barack Obama.  It is not always the same.

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

              by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:46:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Obama (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie, gmb

            Obama can stop petulantly punishing the gay community andy day now. One wonders why he started doing it in the first place.

            •  I am talking about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, Predictor

              progressive alliances.  The original comment spoke of walking away from the progressive movement.  I responded to his comment.

              Barack Obama is not the progressive movement.  It was here before him and will be here after him.

              The question is whether we can build a blue/green/rainbow alliance.  

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

              by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:49:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did not say that I was walking away from the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gmb

                progressive community.

                I said that this comment is for those who say "wait your turn."

                No one else is involved in that.

                President Barack Obama - #44 - "Backstabber of Gays"-In-Chief

                by Yalin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:37:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Obama is busily building his alliances (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie, gmb, craigkg, Predictor

            with the "center," ignoring and frustrating progressives at just about every turn.

            He's making his choice; how is it not our right to make ours?

            •  I am not Obama. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor

              Make your choice.

              I know you can distinguish between Obama and the progresisve coalition.  I've read yoru stuff.

              I am talking about alliances.  You are talking about Barack Obama.

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

              by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:47:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Last time I checked, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gmb, Predictor

                Obama was the president.  He calls the alliances when it comes to Democratic electoral politics.

                •  What? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  Progressives exist outside of Barack Obama.  I'm sorry but life is much more complex than merely following the leader.  

                  Your comment makes no sense and you know better.

                  You can complain or you can work to win.  How does the GLBT movement get from here to the Promised Land?

                  Barack Obama is just one person, yes, powerful, but a movement of people can be more powerful.  Building a real movement creates change from below.  And doing that requires alliances.

                  Obama is not a King and certainly does not tell many progressives what to do.

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

                  by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:55:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    buckhorn okie, gmb, Predictor

                    You can complain or you can work to win.  How does the GLBT movement get from here to the Promised Land?

                    Not through Barack Obama, that's for sure.  Only by stuffing Congress so full of progressives that Obama goes down in defeat will that be possible.

                    •  Then let's (4+ / 0-)

                      stuff Congress full of progressives.

                      I look at issues.  Obama is not good on gay rights, although he is better than many Rs.  But he's good on some other issues.  

                      In my view, we work to make change regardless of what Obama does or does not do.

                      State by state is making change.  Using a multi-prong strategy.  Pressuring Obama in key states with the possibility that GLBT voters might sit one out.  That's legitimate.

                      Do what works.  

                      I just think alliances among progressives works better.  That's all.

                      Obama is not the whole show.  

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

                      by TomP on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:03:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Building Alliances (5+ / 0-)

            The key is building alliances that succeed for all

            And telling people that they have to wait their turn while you get what you want first, because what you want is more important than what they want, is not a strategy that builds alliances.

          •  An ally is someone who helps you. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie, gmb, corvo, esquimaux

            Not someone who does not hurt you just a little less than your enemies.

            I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

            by scrape on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:11:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Corr.: An ally is someone who helps you. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              corvo

              Not someone who hurts you just a little less than your enemies.

              That would be the definition of a milder enemy.

              I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

              by scrape on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:13:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Immigration reform (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian S, Ms Bluezone

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            Is this effort, as a for instance, going to "succeed for all"?  Do you think that the various immigrant advocacy organization are going to put their own homophobia aside?  Are they going to fight the homophobia of the church documented in the article?  Will they demand a bill that includes simple fairness for gay and lesbian couples?  Will they present a united front against one that doesn't?

            I have my doubts.  Like Yalin, I'm done with prioritizing my own community last just because that's where other people think we should be.

        •  Health care is an important issue for me... (20+ / 0-)

          ...and all glbt people.  I have to pay taxes on my partner's coverage because although we have a civil union, it's not a marriage.

          I also suspect that any health plan will exclude treatment of transsexual people.  Just a guess.

          •  I'd really like to take care of the (5+ / 0-)
            healthcare end of this with a Medicare public option or single payer mostly because no one should be worried about healthcare benefits in this country - no one.

            And to clarify, that doesn't mean that the gay marriage equality for a whole universe of other reasons should be finally just freakin' established - just that I think this employer based private healthcare insurance model is complete crap and needs to be replaced now for all Americans.

            •  Does it occur to anyone... (5+ / 0-)

              ...that equal rights for glbt people does not start and end with marriage equality?

              •  It occurs to me. (0+ / 0-)

                I am not sure what you're implying here.

                I was just making the point that a huge percentage of the population of the US is screwed on the healthcare front and I'd like to see that fixed for everyone.  And I went on to say that that belief was in no way meant to displace advocacy for marriage equality because there are a whole universe of other reasons why that should be established that go well beyond healthcare benefits.  Is that a problem?

                •  Perhaps "my problem" was in the placement... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...of your comment as a reply to me.

                  •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                    I was responding to the comment you made that you and your partner are subjected to undo burden on the healthcare front and I believe that the only way to insure that everyone regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation etc. is to get a public option or single payer.  As far as I know, Medicare covers all people in this country who are over 65.  They don't discriminate based on sexual orientation, marital status, race, gender etc.  I'd just like to see that extended to all Americans.  Personally, I think Medicare for all is going to be the most effective way of minimizing healthcare discrimination for many minority groups.

                    •  Actually, they discriminate... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      musing85

                      ...on what they cover.  Transfolk getting medical coverage just doesn't happen.

                      They don't discriminate based on sexual orientation, marital status, race, gender etc

                      •  You will receive no Medicare benefits? (0+ / 0-)

                        Really?  I find that a bit difficult to believe.

                        •  Not for some treatments. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          esquimaux

                          Trying to see a gynecologist was a major pain which required me taking my case to the Arkansas Commission on Health Insurance...and that was for insurance I paid for.  Government care is not more expansive.  The VA doesn't treat trans patients equally.  And rules have been adopted that say that doctors, if they wish, can refuse to treat us.

                          Have you ever been thrown out of an endocrinologist's office?  I have...and I was 13 years pot-op at the time.

                          •  post-op (0+ / 0-)
                          •  I think that I made the point that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ms Bluezone

                            healthcare reform in the form of a public option was only one element.  I believe in equal protection and opportunity for all citizens of this country.  I happen to think it is bullshit that there have to be any specific laws written to affirm rights I believe that you and everyone else should be entitled to.  I understand that many aspects of our system are prone to be rigged against minority groups and that our citizenry and government have failed miserably in protecting minorities from abuses especially in recent decades.  Anyhow, I don't know what to tell you other than that I support pretty much any and all remedies to our systemic discrimination.

                •  Why should health care (0+ / 0-)

                  Come first when gay families - who if any of you have forgotten, are also Americans - won't have any federal benefits from it because in the eyes of our government, our families are less than?

                  To add to this, since when does health care come before basic civil rights? In the hierarchy of policy, shouldn't a country's protection of its citizen's civil rights come first???

                  To add even further, why should the quantity of one community vs. the other come before the quality of life for all? I'm not attacking you personally, but I would like you to seriously think about this before you reply.

        •  False dichotomy (7+ / 0-)

          Most of the arguments here have not been about "waiting your turn", they have been about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; not saying Obama is just like Bush, or it doesn't matter who is in charge, nothing will change, or "what will happen if Obama loses the Left", or "we're real issues Lefties, you all are just dead armadillos in the middle of the road".

          As for,

          I don't have time for "your" priorities if "you" don't have time for mine.

          That's just sad. Equality is not "your" isssue, it effects all of us. Global warming is not "my" issue, it effects all of us. Health care is not a "straight" issue, it effects gays, too.

          It is counterproductive to keep attacking other progressives as the enemy, instead of working together to defeat the real enemies of progress.

          Most of the pushback here has been the result of the strident anti-Obama, anti-Democratic rhetoric - not just by a minority of hotheads in the "gay community," but by a minority of hotheads in the "single-payer community," the "locavore community", the "war crimes tribunal community," etc.

          I put all those in quotes, because those are all issues progressives support, those are all issues of this community.

          It's not a binary world. That is a Right wing worldview - with us or agin' us, Right vs Wrong, God vs. Debul. That's not an inclusive, progressive worldview.

          You can't talk about equality in terms of "our issues" vs "your issues".

          If nothing else, from a purely pragmatic POV, no minority has ever gained its rights without support from members of the majority.

          We're all in this together. No one should have to "wait their turn", but no one should think that burning down the house is going to save us when the rains come.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From a purely pragmatic point of view... (7+ / 0-)

            If nothing else, from a purely pragmatic POV, no minority has ever gained its rights without support from members of the majority.

            From a purely pragmatic POV, no majority has ever come around to supporting a minority in any substantive way until they became convinced that that the minority was prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater and burn down the house.

            I heard all this same crap ad nauseum out of white Democrats who "supported" equal rights 50 years ago.  And just to be clear, I am white and I am straight, and I grew up in the South so I know whereof I speak.

            In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. Martin Luther King Jr.

            •  We have a different read of the same history (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman

              You are entitled to your opinion.

              What you aren't entitled to is judging others with dismissive "supported" quotes and other hostility.

              Again, you are attacking the wrong people. The folks on Daily Kos are not the reason same sex marriage is illegal.

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:04:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, but the folks on Daily Kos who are saying (5+ / 0-)

                "Trust Obama, he knows what he's doing" and "Don't be so pushy, you'll get your turn" and "Why don't you vote for a Republican next time?" are among the reasons why it will probably be another generation before LGBT folk gain the equal rights that are supposed to be their constitutional due.

                •  You can choose to focus on the voices you (0+ / 0-)

                  don't like, or you can choose to hear the overwhelming majority of people who support you.

                  It's a choice only YOU can make, not anyone else's responsibility.

                  You can choose to reduce sincere discussions about strategy and tactics to "trust Obama", "don't be pushy", "vote GOP", or you can choose to practice what you would hope people would practice toward you - tolerance and an open ear to really hear, consider, and respond to different ideas.

                  It's a choice only YOU can make. It's not anyone's responsibility to only tell you what you want to hear.

                  I'm not the enemy, musing. You at least should know that. Nor are most of the people here being told to "just fuck off" by a tiny minority of people so blinded by rage that they become the very thing they hate.

                  I really don't give a rat's ass about unreconstructed haters, no matter what minority they belong to. I've never heard a word from any of these people before, and once they're done blustering here, they'll never be heard of again. Meanwhile, I'll continue to work with people in the LGBT community who are constructively and effectively producing change in the world.

                  I do, however, care about you, because I think you're not one of the haters. I think you're just frustrated and being seduced by their thoughtless rage.

                  I was inspired by Harvey Milk, and MLK and Gandhi, and other people who believed that means matter, that they must embody the ends we seek.

                  One can't seek loving acceptance if one communicates hate and intolerance. Well, one can seek it, but one will never find it.

                  I'm concerned that the divisive voices here who see this struggle as a death match of gay vs straight not be allowed to drown out all the constructive voices.

                  Even if you really, really think you disagree with me on the means (and I don't think we really differ that much, I've never told gay people to just sit back and wait for the magic change train to come, I was raised by civil rights activists in the 60's, I know you have to go out there and fight for your rights), even if we can't even agree on respecting what I say I am about - please don't dismiss people like me so cavalierly.

                  There is no threat implied in that request - unlike others here, who threaten to leave the Dems, or leave Obama, or never campaign for "other people's issues" (as if global warming or health care will not effect gay people!), I have stated, unequivocably, that the little group of haters here will not cause me to waver in my commitment to help my sisters and brothers in the most accepting communities I know to have the same rights my wife and I and our children have.

                  So, there is nothing to lose by telling me to "fuck off". Really. If it gets you off to join the mindless mob, go for it.

                  But don't lay it on me. Don't make me responsible for the choices you make.

                  Because you always have a choice how you act and react. You can't control a system that discriminates against you, you can't control bigotry and hate - but you can control how you react to it.

                  It's your choice.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:51:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem being (0+ / 0-)

                    that "overhwelming majority" you speak of is almost totally silent. It's the haters, the "get back to the back of the bus"-ers, the "how dare you criticize the president"-ers that are doing all the shouting. And yes, when you support them, you look like one of them. When you say "your equality isn't a high enough priority right now," you look like them. And I have to beg to differ with you that "most" people here aren't saying "sit down and shut up at the back of the bus." I've been here more than five years, and that's exactly the attitude I've heard, from far too many people calling themselves progressives--the very people whom I had thought would automatically get it. You can't possibly understand how hurtful that is.

                    To take all of that and pile on top of it a president and a political party that has, for my entire adult life, come begging to me every couple of years for money and time and talent and votes, always with the promise that "we'll get around to it this time, really"--only to pull a Lucy on me and yank the football away at the last minute--and a president that keeps insisting he's a "fierce advocate" for gay rights when he can hardly be bothered to speak the word above once or twice a year, that's asking a lot. Then to have that same president, in the latest in a long line of tone-deaf fuckups, try to gloss over his two-year history of total inaction with a pitiful crumb like this, and to hear yet another chorus of so-called progressives telling me that warm yellow liquid dribbling down my leg is really rain--and I should be happy to get it since we're in a drought--that's just the last fucking straw.

                    There is a small--but seemingly growing--and highly vocal minority of posters on this site for whom anything less than constant and perfect adulation of the president is the rankest heresy. Even now, one of them is castigating me in another thread, projecting onto me all of her hatred and rage that anyone would dare not love her president as deeply and strongly and perfectly as she does. And I'm just supposed to shrug that off?

                    Sorry, I'm not a saint. Just a very pissed-off human being.

                    •  And I'm facing the same kind of venom (0+ / 0-)

                      from the other end.

                      We both can choose to focus on the haters, or not. I'm as guilty as anyone else of getting caught up in the loud minority.

                      But I do believe that the quieter - but not silent - majority are committed to civil rights for all, and do respect your frustration.

                      I don't think it is fair to compare the past five years to right now, however. It was quite different to argue that the Bush era was not the best time to try to pass equal rights legislation.

                      And, I don't think it's fair to lump everyone who doesn't exactly share your feelings as all being the same.

                      There is a lot of disagreement about what to do.

                      People who don't care, don't get so heated about what is the right thing to do.

                      It is to facile too dismiss principled pragmatists as having no principles. AND, it is too facile to dismiss passionate people as single-issue naifs.

                      You're not supposed to shrug it off. But don't expect me to stand here and bear the brunt of all the rage and frustration against people I fight as hard as you do.

                      So, we're both guilty here. What can we do to move forward?

                      What can we do so that the loud "just waiters" and the loud "just haters" don't take over the movement?

                      We will NEVER get change if we spend all our energy at each others' throats.

                      I know you are a reasonable veteran of this community. I've tried to step in where people have crossed the line  - when someone basically tried to blame gays for torpedoing healthcare efforts, I and others came down on them, hard.

                      But when some over the top haters - who happen to be gay, which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that they are rude assholes - call gay rights activists homophobes, fakes, "Fifth columnists", based on nothing other than the fact that they aren't gay, would it make sense for someone here to draw the line?

                      When people rant and then stalk and HR constructive participants in this community, when they obsessively insult people's person, appearance, intentions, and in general make the kind of comments more appropriate to free republic - they get recs and not a word of criticism.

                      I'm sorry, but it's all well and good to say, "oh, poor straights, complaining about persecution" - but that is not a chapter anywhere in How to Make Friends and Influence People. That's just stupid.

                      And it hurts this community, in ways that last far longer than this argument, and that spread farther than this issue.

                      If we don't stand up to bullies, just because they are minority bullies, then all that will be left will be competing gangs of bullies.

                      Personally, I hope the site redesign introduces some proactive ways for readers to filter out haters and disruptors by username, so their goal of provoking by hurting will be defeated. But we also have to take some responsibility here.

                      There is not excuse for giving a pass to people who are just plain ugly, just because they are part of the tribe.

                      So, I'll try to do a better job making sure people don't dismiss gay concerns. Will you try to do a better job to encourage others to not let the worst haters speak the loudest (and they always claim to speak for "the gay community", never just for themselves)?

                      I'm not here to be told I'm a homophobe, or have to defend my credentials as a progressive. That's just plain ridiculous. If fear we've lost some good people today because of that bullshit, it's been going on all day.

                      We're ending up with balkanized diaries, where people of good will won't even bother to converse with folks with other opinions, because those folks are so hateful and obnoxious about it.

                      It doesn't matter if you think that's unfair, or mock it as "poor oppressed straights". That's life. If people keep telling other progressives to go fuck themselves (some of whom happen to be gay themselves but dare to disagree on tactics with the screamers), and people like you just sit by or even applaud, then people will move on to other things.

                      That will not produce change. Neither will demonizing the 'enemy'. Not everyone who disagrees with blanket attacks on Obama rages that anyone would dare not love her president - just as not everyone who criticizes Obama hates her president.

                      We have to stop this bullshit, it's not helping.

                      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:41:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  They are not the reason... (0+ / 0-)

                ...it is legal, either. They are not the reason for anything. They are not part of the equation at all. They are sitting mute on the sidelines.

                They are exactly the right people to target, for the same reason that MLK targeted JFK, not the KKK.

                And I didn't read that history, I lived it.

                •  So, your argument is that (0+ / 0-)

                  the "folks on Daily Kos" are "not part of the equation at all."

                  The "folks on Daily Kos" are 'sitting mute on the sidelines'.

                  OK, then.

                  Have a good solo run there. And please point me to the history book where any oppressed minority ever won their rights all by themselves, after asking everyone who ever worked along side them and for them to go fuck themselves.

                  The message seems to be, if you aren't gay, fuck off. Doesn't matter what you have actually done for LGBT rights, doesn't matter what LGBT means in your life or your family, doesn't matter what your history is, fuck off.

                  Good luck with that.

                  Fortunately, there are maybe a dozen of you here screaming this hostile message, while millions of people in the LGBT community welcome the participation of committed progressives with open arms.

                  Just as Rev. King welcomed people who fought for civil rights who happened to be white, or atheists, or even white atheists.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:38:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I guess we have a different read on that, too. (0+ / 0-)

                    The message seems to be, if you aren't gay, fuck off.

                    That isn't the message I get at all. I feel quite welcomed, in fact. On the other hand, I'm not reading any of these comments through a guilty and defensive lens. And if a shoe doesn't fit, I don't jam my foot into and then whine about how much it pinches, boo hoo hoo.

                    And please point me to the history book where any oppressed minority ever won their rights all by themselves, after asking everyone who ever worked along side them and for them to go fuck themselves.

                    Heh. I can see you really did not live through the Sixties. But no matter...why on earth would I want to do that? Since you insist that it's only small minority of LGBTs who are "screaming this hostile message," there is nothing to worry about, is there? So why waste my time digging through books to prove a point you say is moot.

                    •  There you go (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not reading any of these comments through a guilty and defensive lens.

                      The personal dig brigade.

                      Have fun with that "when did you stop beating your wife", I'm sure it works great for you at parties, too.

                      You're right about one thing. Why bother trying to engage? So much easier just to feel bigger by making others smaller.

                      Enjoy.

                      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:55:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Rev. King (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, he welcomed people who fought for civil rights and who happened to be white. (The fact that you throw in atheism tells me how young you are; that was no issue whatsoever at the time.)

                    He did not welcome those who not only stood silent themselves, but waggled their fingers and told blacks they should just be patient, that their fight for civil rights was endangering more important things on Kennedy's agenda, that he had only been President for 6 months, yadda yadda yadda. And there were plenty of your kind back then, too.

                    I'm going to stop now, because you have reminded me how very much indeed the situation for the gay community is exactly the same as it was for the black community, back when the Democrats similarly fought civil rights at every turn. The similarities are almost eery, in fact. There is a diary to be written there, and I shall write it. Both you and Obama will be in it, whether you have the courage to recognize yourselves or not.

                    •  You're wrong about atheism (0+ / 0-)

                      and the role atheists playing the civil rights movement, or what an issue it was in the black community at the time, but it's clear the phrase "you're wrong" is filtered out by your arrogant, insulting self filter, so I won't bother to belabor the point.

                      It's also clear how tone deaf you are to any concerns but your own.

                      "Plenty of your kind".

                      Classic words of the bigot.

                      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:58:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  As I clearly said in my comment, it was directed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Free Spirit

            at those who say "get to the back of the bus" and "wait your turn."

            And no one else. Those who are true allies, I fully support and work with. Those who aren't, not so much.

            President Barack Obama - #44 - "Backstabber of Gays"-In-Chief

            by Yalin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:39:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The basin is empty... (5+ / 0-)

            There's no baby there, and there never has been.  It's just a tub full of dirty water.

            It's been empty promises and betrayal for twenty-years now and longer.  The first anti-discrimination law for gay and lesbian people was introduced in 1973, ffs.  The Democratic Party has accomplished nothing at the federal level for our community, ever, other than helping to pass DADT and DOMA and all the other discriminatory crap we have to deal with now.

            •  Feel free to give up, then, while the rest of us (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman

              push forward.

              If you can't make a constructive contribution to achieving real change, at least don't tear down people who are.

              I don't get the cynics. If you all don't believe anything can or will happen, why are you filling up these diaries with "no hope" comments?

              What purpose does that serve?

              It's like someone disappointed in a relationship, hell-bent on making sure no one else can have one.

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:02:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Would you people please decide (7+ / 0-)

                just which cliché you want us to follow?

                If we say we're pissed and want action, you tell us it's too early in his term, or there's some other legislation that's too important to put in jeopardy, or that we should just have patience and trust Obama means well.

                And if we say there's no there there in the first place, you tell us to push harder and yell louder. Which is it supposed to be?

                And considering we've been pushing and yelling at least since 1969, I don't think it's at all unreasonable at this point to think that perhaps we're just not going to get anywhere with the Democratic Party. They only seem interested in us and in our issues every couple of years when they come begging for money and votes, after which they expect us to quietly go back into the closet until the next time they need us.

                Well, fuck that shit.

                •  "we" and "you" (0+ / 0-)

                  If we say we're pissed and want action, you tell us it's too early in his term, or there's some other legislation that's too important to put in jeopardy, or that we should just have patience and trust Obama means well.

                  Actually, I haven't said any of those things, but I guess we all look the same to you.

                  And if we say there's no there there in the first place, you tell us to push harder and yell louder.

                  Nope. Haven't said that, either.

                  And considering we've been pushing and yelling at least since 1969, I don't think it's at all unreasonable at this point to think that perhaps we're just not going to get anywhere with the Democratic Party.

                  Yup, clearly the Republican Party is the way to go. Or, were you thinking Nader in 2010?

                  They only seem interested in us and in our issues every couple of years when they come begging for money and votes, after which they expect us to quietly go back into the closet until the next time they need us.

                  "They" need "us"?

                  Perhaps your problem is that you are not a member of the party you wish to change. Certainly not in spirit. And, you seem to consider yourself apart from me, too, just because my sexual preference might not match yours.

                  It is unfortunate you and many others here do not distinguish between civil libertarians and those who aren't committed to civil liberties. As long as you only see gay vs straight, you will not prevail.

                  MLK brought change not by pitting the black man against the white man, but by uniting black people whose rights were being denied, with white people who shared his commitment to equality - against all those who oppose equality.

                  I can't change my skin color, and I can't change my sexual preference. I'm sorry I'm not gay. if that causes you to lump me in with the "straight folks" who deny you your rights, then you are just as much of a bigot as blacks who opposed MLK's strategy by saying "all those white people are the same, they are the enemy".

                  This "us" vs "them" rhetoric will not get anyone anywhere. It is the legacy of the mean-spirited Bush years, inherited from over 20 years of Right-wing selfish narrative.

                  Progressives who see many positive things on many fronts from the Obama administration, after 8 years of darkness, aren't the enemy, just because they aren't eager to throw Obama off the bus. We prefer to work with him and his administration to change his bad policies, while supporting his good ones.

                  If you say, "fuck the planet, fuck health care, fuck the economy, fuck peace, fuck the troops, fuck everyone, because I'm not getting what I deserve" - even though you absolutely 100% deserve it - then don't expect to get far.

                  You're essentially saying the mirror image of those you object to, who tell you to just sit back and wait.

                  We don't have to wait on anything, and we don't have to chuck all the progressive progress we are making as we continue to work for full equality for all.

                  Obama is not the messiah, and if you expected him to wave a magic wand and bypass the political and legislative process in this country, then the fault is yours, not his.

                  This is a tough slog in a flawed process, but we have someone who actually listens to the people for the first time in years. Screaming at him is probably not going to get you what you want, particularly when you insist on doing it alone by referring to life-long advocates for civil rights, people who, like me, may actually be quietly professionally working with the federal government to help the gay community in ways you don't even know about, as a uniformly lockstep straight homophobic "enemy".

                  If you think the answer is to tell the Democratic Party to go fuck itself, go right ahead.

                  If you think you gain allies by telling us to go fuck ourselves, go right ahead.

                  Unlike you, I don't hold other people emotional hostages, and will continue to fight for the rights of LGBT people no matter how many screamers here call me names or treat me as a stereotype rather than an individual.

                  You're not going to change my mind. I'm just telling you that other people who aren't quite as committed may not feel like working quite as hard for people who call them shit. Not because that is right, or just, but because it is how the process works.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Self-understanding fail (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gmb

                    Your comment is full of it.

                    Boil it down, and your position is "Shut up and go sit back down in the back of the bus like you were told, be a good little soldier and just give us money and vote for us no matter what we do."

                    As I said at the end of my previous comment, fuck that shit. This president will get my support when he demonstrates, through concrete and meaningful action, that I have his. Not before. And if the Democratic Party goes along with him, then they'll be losing a reliable voter and supporter they've had for thirty-plus years. The Republicans are not the only other political party in existence.

                    •  That's not my comment at all (0+ / 0-)

                      That is the enemy you want to fight. I'm not that enemy.

                      I'm not telling you to shut up and sit down at all. on the contrary. I'm also not asking you for any money, obviously, nor demanding your vote.

                      As for support for the president, you feel it's a binary thing. I don't.

                      When the Nazis started threatening the world in the '30s (don't worry, this isn't a Godwin), Ben Gurion and other Zionists were still fighting the British for an independent state of Israel. In fact, the British had just published a notorious "White Paper" which denied the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people for statehood.

                      They faced a dilemma - do we abandon our fight for a homeland, or do we ignore the Nazi threat?

                      They ultimately decided on a third way. Ben Gurion phrased it thusly:

                      "[we should] fight the Nazis as if there's no White Paper and fight the White Paper as if there are no Nazis."

                      I believe we can fight for equal rights, rejecting the president's stand on that issue, at the same time that we support the urgent progressive aspects of this president's agenda.

                      If you disagree, I still greatly respect you and your participation in this forum, as I always have. I know we agree on many important and fundamental things, even if not on this.

                      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:10:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Heh (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      musing85

                      If we say we're pissed and want action, you tell us it's too early in his term, or there's some other legislation that's too important to put in jeopardy, or that we should just have patience and trust Obama means well.

                      Actually, I haven't said any of those things, but I guess we all look the same to you

                      Heh.

                      The message seems to be, if you aren't gay, fuck off. Doesn't matter what you have actually done for LGBT rights, doesn't matter what LGBT means in your life or your family, doesn't matter what your history is, fuck off.

                      Fortunately, there are maybe a dozen of you here screaming this hostile message,

                      I never said any of that. But I guess "we" all look the same to "you," huh?

              •  I'm certainly not giving up (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gmb, Free Spirit, Yalin, Ms Bluezone

                I've just come to the realization that the Democratic Party, as currently constituted at the federal level, is an obstacle to equal rights--a particularly corrupt and insidious obstacle.

                Have you seen this analysis of polling data?  There's a nearly universal majoritarian consensus on almost all of our issues.  If the Dems don't get legislation passed, it's because they don't want it passed.

              •  Who said that? (0+ / 0-)

                If you all don't believe anything can or will happen,

                Perhaps I missed a comment or two, but I haven't seen anyone claim this. What I have seen people claim is that there is no hope that Obama will do anything, at least not without some serious hardball activism. And that the Democrats generally are no great friends to the LGBT community.

        •  Right (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, Yalin, chiefscribe, Ms Bluezone

          What an insulting gesture.

          No gay rights, no gay money.  It's that simple.

          Democracy needs accountability. Investigate and prosecute the Torture Thirteen.

          by Mimikatz on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:58:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  taxing health care benefits (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, Yalin

          I'm on my partners Insurance and we are taxed!

        •  the government doesn't us licking anything... (0+ / 0-)

          ...why else would the Post office go to lick-less stamps? I'm not buying that it was to cut the cost of glue. No, it's ok for the bedroom police to write the laws that intrude on our private lives, but they can't live-up to the same demands of morality they place on our backs. Can they, John Ensign and David Vitter?

          "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:19:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, I just heard the rim shot in my head. (14+ / 0-)

      Kudos and well played.

    •  WTF are they thinking ! This is beyond worrisome (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, RElland, Ms Bluezone

      and downright strange. For justice, must we go to Dick Cheney

      If I just had one day when I wasnt all confused

      by FuzzyDice on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:29:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the levels of creepiness (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, Texas Blue Dot, Sue Stone, FuzzyDice

        is compounded by 1000% by the seeming truth of that statement.

        So the terrorists of Gitmo are stronger, faster, and better than the USDOJ? The Senate thinks so. My. How "American".

        by RElland on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:40:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Course Cheney says that now they'r e out of power (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, Ms Bluezone

        Don't believe for one second Republicans would fight for gay rights if they were in power. Their base is even more against it. Cheney can speak more honestly about his own feelings, whether the Republican base agrees or not, now that he's out of power.

        We have 2 problems though. 1. Obama seems to not be much of a real fighter. He talks the talk, sometimes, but doesn't want the walk.

        1. Democrats are trying to secure the growing Latino, and recent African American, voters. Instead of being strong leaders on this, they're trying to please this demographic by not challenging their prejudices. How long will this last? Will they feel confident to do the right thing at some point, or will they figure they can deal with the loss of strong LGBT support in exchange for the growing Latino vote?

        "All [US govt model based countries], without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly." - Bruce Ackerman

        by PoxOnYou on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:38:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It really is as offensive as the DOJ argument (26+ / 0-)

      supporting DOMA.

      It's totally unconscionable that this administration would believe that its tokenism is sufficient to satisfy the GLBT community.

      As an ardent Obama supporter, I'm incensed by the stupidity and insensitivity the administration is exhibiting when it comes to GLBT issues.

      For all of Obama's talk about "a more perfect union", and his promises to ensure equal protection under the law, this ludicrous promise of extending relocation benefits smacks of the attitudes that endured for over a century as a result of Plessy v. Ferguson.

      The idea of "separate but equal" is being re-introduced in the canons of law, and rather pitifully at that.

      The administration should be ashamed, and is delusional if it believes today's action will qualm the growing frustration and anger in the GLBT community.

      "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

      by rontun on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:31:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I just woke up to this news and you're right. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grasshopper, binkaroni

        However, he hasn't made the annoucement yet. I wonder if there's any way he can turn this boat around? Is it even possible we're jumping the gun here in some way? We've been wrong before, lord knows.

        Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

        by LABobsterofAnaheim on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:38:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because of DOMA Obama is actually limited (11+ / 0-)

          as to what he can do with an Executive Order or a Policy Memo.  He's apprently going to roll out a policy memo today that doesn't extend healthcare benefits because of DOMA - which is administration just argued in favor of.  

          What you're seeing is a serious lack of organization and clear thinking in crafting political and policy strategy on the gay rights front.  Someone needs to coordinate this aspect of White House policy; and if someone has been thus far they need some big help.

          They schedule the VP for a DNC fundraising event for the gay community just a couple of weeks after they were scheduled to defend DOMA in the courts and no one bothers to review the brief in anticipation that the mere defense of DOMA by the OA DOJ is going to piss these constituents off?  Then they panic and want to extend rights to gay partners of Federal employees, but find that DOMA and DADT both present significant obstacles to the key rights - so they offer relocation assistance? They really need to get their act together here.

    •  Even this morning, Headline News is stating (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, Four of Nine

      as fact, that Obama's extending benefits INCLUDING health benefits.

      Right on top of those facts, huh, MSM?

      Never has so much been taken from so many by so few for so long...

      by JWSwift on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:52:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think their reading of DOMA is correct (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman

        The portion dealing with federal law prohibits the federal government from viewing same-sex relationships as "marriages," and calling those in the relationships "spouses."  I don't see anything in it precluding benefits to same-sex domestic partners.  If there's case law or some other reason to interpret it that way, I wish someone would cite it.

        Here's the relevant section:

        In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996) codified at 1 U.S.C. §7 (1997).

  •  Of course he wants to give them relocation (17+ / 0-)

    assistance; if I thought my neighbors were a bunch of incestuous pedophiles, I'd want them relocated too...

    "When the government becomes a lawbreaker, it invites every man to become a law unto himself." ~ Justice Brandeis

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:19:00 AM PDT

  •  Obama should just take over the country (10+ / 0-)

    like Ahmadinejad.  Then he wouldn't have to worry about all this pesky legislation working its way through congress.  Maybe instead he could just drop all this fuss about health care and climate change legislation.

  •  This is one area.... (31+ / 0-)

    ...where I think Obama is really failing to take a strong stand.  I have no problem with compromise, incrementalism, etc.  But this is a matter of decency and equality.  He's not doing this right.

    If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

    by JPhurst on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:19:31 AM PDT

  •  He can't defy the law of the land. (6+ / 0-)

    And he doesn't have the support in the country or in Congress to change the law. What else can he do?

    http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/

    by Common Cents on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:19:42 AM PDT

  •  Well, after his DoJ compared gays in court to (13+ / 0-)

    child molesters and dog-humpers, a little relocation assistance will make it all better, right?

    •  His DoJ has to enforce the law. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, AndyMo42

      I hate the law, but it is their job to enforce it.

      http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/

      by Common Cents on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:20:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the law that the government (11+ / 0-)

        HAS to characterize gays as pedophiles?  I was unaware of that.

        "When the government becomes a lawbreaker, it invites every man to become a law unto himself." ~ Justice Brandeis

        by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:21:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But they didn't DO that. (5+ / 0-)

          This is absurd hyperbole meant to get an emotional response, but has NO BASIS in fact.

          The legal brief cited legal precedents.  In no way, shape or form in the history of law has citing legal precedents been construed by courts as comparing the groups within those precedents to each other in terms of their moral qualities.

          I finally put in a signature!

          by Boris Godunov on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:29:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What were the legal precedents? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gmb, corvo

            And why were they chosen and not others?

            So the terrorists of Gitmo are stronger, faster, and better than the USDOJ? The Senate thinks so. My. How "American".

            by RElland on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:49:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They were chosen (5+ / 0-)

              because they were the only examples in which the Federal government restricting marriage rights has been upheld by the courts.  When defending a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by a President--as is the job of the DoJ--lawyers must present to the court reasons why the law should be upheld.  One of the chief means of doing this is by citing past cases that have been ruled on by courts that upheld the government's legal ability to do such a thing.  The identity of the groups in question isn't the issue, it's the authority of the government to restrict marriage that's being put on trial.

              I finally put in a signature!

              by Boris Godunov on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:56:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  IANAL, but I could come up with pro forma (9+ / 0-)

        faintly insincere arguments in favor of DOMA without calling gays incestuous beastialist pedophiles.

      •  How about enforcing the anti torture laws? (12+ / 0-)

        I guess comparing gays to child molesters to defend DOMA is higher on the list than war crimes.

        "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

        by heart of a quince on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:22:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think you mean defend the law (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb

        But I'll take some zealous enforcement too.

        CASC: All animals Californians are equal, but some animals Californians are more equal than others.

        by craigkg on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:31:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But there is still a ton of wiggle room there (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, chiefscribe

        without tanking the case or being accused of bad lawyering.  The Bush administration never felt compelled to defend the Clean Water Act or Civil Rights Act all that forcefully, and they never defended these laws using progressive arguments.  And the Obama administration should not feel compelled to employ utterly vile arguments in favor of a noxious law.  Just give the law a tepid defense and let it die in court.

      •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        limulus, Common Cents

        I'm really aggravated to see all this rending of garments and gnashing of teeth from a bunch of people who should really know better (including front-page posters).

        1. The DOMA brief is not coming from Obama.  It's coming from the DOJ.  We finally have a separate and independent DOJ--this is something we desperately wanted, remember?
        1. The DOJ is compelled to defend all federal laws, even the ones that suck.  Again, this is something we wanted.
        1. When defending a federal law, a lawyer is compelled to make whatever arguments they think might be persuasive to the judge.  This especially includes citing precedent that supports the power the government is trying to claim--exactly what they did here.  They can't "go easy" or fail to make some relevant arguments because of political considerations.  See point 2 above!

        The DOJ acted absolutely properly here.  They did absolutely nothing wrong, in fact, they are performing their job with more professionalism and competence than the Bush DOJ ever showed.

        You want to complain about DOMA itself, rather than the DOJ's defense of it, then I'm sympathetic.  But even here I'd argue that this and other gay rights legislation ought to be prioritized after things like health care, energy, and EFCA.  Not because gay rights is less important, because I don't believe it is less important.

        Rather, it's simply because it is only going to get harder to pass these big sweeping reforms as Obama's term goes on, while every year, every month that passes makes it easier to enact gay rights legislation.  Hell, opinions are shifting so rapidly in our favor, that waiting an extra six months may actually result in better legislation.

        Does anyone really think it's a good idea to have a two-week-long debate on DOMA right when the health care reform legislation that we're all going to have to live with for the next 20 years is taking shape?  Right when we need everybody's focus and pressure on the public option?

        We can't do everything at once.  We've waited decades for some of these gay rights issues to be addressed.  If you can't see your way clear to wait an extra four months or so for the sake of fixing health care, then that is tremendously selfish.  I am rapidly becoming exasperated with the refusal to acknowledge that enacting even tremendously popular gay rights reforms, like repealing DADT, still focuses the national eye away from health care at a time when public option is hanging by a thread.

        •  I'm willing to meet you half-way (14+ / 0-)

          I'm willing to consider the possibility that you are a really nice person who is passionate about your beliefs, and that you just haven't thought through some parts of what you're saying.

          Your thesis is that you want the country to wait for LGBT people to have equal rights, because there are more pressing things on the agenda.

          You say you think we should wait for equal protections and rights ...

          Not because gay rights is less important, because I don't believe it is less important.

          ... but the reason you think that we should wait is because healthcare is more important.  You make this clear when you say

          If you can't see your way clear to wait an extra four months or so for the sake of fixing health care, then that is tremendously selfish.

          The clear message here is that healthcare is more important, because LGBT people are just being "selfish" if we think that equality should take precedence over healthcare.  

          Look, you're entitled to your opinion, and to your priorities.  Obviously healthcare is more important to you, and seems more urgent to you right now.  That's your choice.  You also make a point that LGBT issues may become easier to address the longer we wait -- I don't agree with the conclusion you draw, but I can understand your reasoning.  

          I wish, though, that you could be more up-front about it.  Don't say that LGBT rights are as important to you as healthcare, when this is clearly untrue.  I believe that you are probably supportive of LGBT rights, but obviously healthcare, and EFCA, and energy, are more important to you.  When you present your argument like this, it really comes across as disingenuous and condescending, whether you intend it to or not.  It's certainly not going to get anyone to agree with you who doesn't already.

          I think that you might feel differently if you were gay, lesbian, or transgender person -- for example, if your partner died and your children were taken away from you forever, you might think that having equal rights was kind of important.  Or if you lost your job because of your orientation.  Or if you were denied the right to make medical decisions for your spouse or your children, or if you were kept from their hospital bed.  Or if you had to break up with your soulmate because they happened to be from another country, and there was no way to get married to allow them to immigrate.  Or if you were beaten up all the time at school and the administrators and/or police did nothing to protect you.  If any of those things happened to you, LGBT rights might be more of a priority.

          But they haven't happened to you, presumably, or to anyone you love, and so the lens through which you see the world is a little different than some other people's.  

          SO how about this -- I'll try to see the world through your lens, and assume you're a well-meaning person with different priorities than myself.  Maybe you can try to understand that for someone whose family, job, financial security, or physical well-being is threatened RIGHT NOW because of lack of federal protections, equal rights is really, really important, and just as important as healthcare.  Neither position is necessarily right, but both are understandable.

          I think we can do more than one thing at a time.

          And in answer to your question,

          Does anyone really think it's a good idea to have a two-week-long debate on DOMA right when the health care reform legislation that we're all going to have to live with for the next 20 years is taking shape?  Right when we need everybody's focus and pressure on the public option?

          ... I do think it's a good idea.  So we disagree.  But let's do so respectfully.

          Thanks.

          •  You're wrong about me (4+ / 0-)

            I appreciate your willingness to argue politely, it's a nice change from some of the stuff I see written about my viewpoint.

            But you are basically saying that because I think health care ought to be prioritized ahead of gay rights issues on the chronological agenda, that this necessarily means I think health care is more important.  This isn't the case.

            If I was forced to choose between full equality for LGBT people and universal health care, and guaranteed that we would immediately achieve whichever one I picked but that the other would be off the table for the next 30 years, I would pick gay rights.

            But that is not the situation at hand.  The situation at hand, to oversimplify things a bit, is that we have one shot at health care--right now--and that if we blow it, that window closes for another 15 or 20 years.  Gay equality, on the other hand, is only getting more popular, as numerous polls and demographic studies have shown.

            In short, gay rights can wait, and health care cannot.  That is hard for some people to hear, and you may in fact disagree with my assessment of the playing field.  That's as may be.  But it is most certainly NOT the case that I believe health care is more important than gay rights.

            I'm focused on the ultimate outcome here.  If, in two years, we have both public option and the DADT-DOMA-ENDA trifecta taken care of, that's what I care about.  I think that's about one million times more important than whether gay rights got done a few months sooner or a few months later than otherwise.  I think most anyone would agree that if, two years from now, we are saddled with a failed health care reform package, but we managed to get DOMA repealed a few months sooner, that is not even close to worth it.

            And don't even get me started on what happens to the Democrats' poll numbers if we blow health care reform.  I doubt gay rights will be well served by losing our seats to Republicans.

            •  Thanks for a thoughtful reply. (5+ / 0-)

              I wish you could have written this first, rather than your initial comment -- The second comment makes me think about what you're saying, while the first made me, and, I'm guessing, a lot of other people, want to say f-you.  (I'm glad to have resisted, because now I got a lot more clarification of where you're coming from!  It's generally good to resist the initial urge.)

              I guess my point is -- even if your logic is flawless, telling people who don't enjoy the same rights as everyone else, who have been paying in one way or another for other people's bigotry for all their lives -- telling these people that they are "selfish" for wanting what you already have is at best ineffective, and at worst, grossly insensitive and insulting.  (I'm assuming here that you're straight because of the content of your post; I may be wrong.)

              Think of how it might feel to someone who is denied basic human rights to be told they are "selfish" for wanting that to change, and for feeling betrayed at the lack of movement on the issue.

              Argue strategy all you like, but please keep in mind that this is not an abstract political equation for many people -- people's feelings do deserve consideration; I'd like to think that empathy is a hugely positive thing that separates progressive ideals -- and discourse -- from those of the radical right.

              •  Bravo (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                indyada, Ms Bluezone

                to both of you for being willing to talk civilly.

                LGBT rights are human rights, health care is a human right and human rights should not even enter the equation of priorities, they should be automatically accepted. The fact that we discuss these things in terms of priorities is a very sad reflection of the state of our society.

    •  This is a lie (8+ / 0-)

      The legal brief did no such thing.

      People who aren't lawyers don't seem to have a clue what it means to cite legal precedents, and that it is not the same thing as comparing the subjects of the cases to each other.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:27:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  keep saying it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boris Godunov

        I've been reccing your comments on this.  I think Obama handled this badly, and I even think the DOJ could have taken a different approach to the case if Obama was so inclined.  And I see no reason for people not to protest upholding a bad law (though they need to protest Congress more than Obama)

        BUT, you are 100% correct that citing precedent does not mean moral equivalence.  If I am accused of stealing and I cite some procedural violation by the police that in a murder case in the past caused evidence to be thrown out, I'm not equating stealing with murder.

        Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

        by eparrot on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:11:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That would be AG Holder, not POTUS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      binkaroni, cherish0708

      The prez has NO say in filing briefs or the interworkings of the Justice Dept.

      Send your nasty comments to AG Holder and stop blaming Obama.

      Obama broke no promises. He did NOT campaign on supporting gay marriage.

  •  So he'll agree to pay to relocate them (10+ / 0-)

    to a state that allows them to get married.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:19:59 AM PDT

  •  It's pretty sad (7+ / 0-)

    When a historically conservative state like Iowa is more progressive and ahead of the curve than the 1st black American president........

  •  You do understand it is the Justice Dept, right?? (14+ / 0-)

    Everyone here directs this overheated vitriol toward the prez for the briefs filed by the professional non-partisan lawyers at the DoJ.

    It's ridiculous.

    Does anyone here know how the Justice Dept works?

    Didn't we have extreme debates recently about an independent DoJ that is not linked to the hip of the prez like we had with Alberto Gonzalez?

    Take a deep breath and then send your comments to Justice and congress to undo DOMA and stop slammin the prez for the justice dept!

  •  EQUALITY (10+ / 0-)

    ur doin it wrong.

    Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

    by hazzcon on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:20:43 AM PDT

  •  Patience. (5+ / 0-)

    The man has been President for a few months, and to read some on here, you'd think he hates gay people, and is as bad as George W Bush on the war.  

    He is cleaning up a big, big mess.  After he gets health care, THEN I'll start being impatient for some of this other stuff too.  Until then... patience.

    •  Maybe you're right (14+ / 0-)

      I guess the big, big file cabinet containing all the big, big economy folders is sitting RIGHT IN FRONT of the itsy bitsy file cabinet containing the one sheeter that says "Stop doing the DODT thing."

      And we can't get to that piece of paper until we empty out allllllll these other big, big drawers and send them to the road.

      Whatever.

    •  Uh huh... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, corvo, Cali Techie, Predictor, chiefscribe

      And if that damned brief had been filed, that's exactly what most people would still be saying even now.
      Silly defense brief. How dare it cause all this vitriol?!

      So the terrorists of Gitmo are stronger, faster, and better than the USDOJ? The Senate thinks so. My. How "American".

      by RElland on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:34:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fuuny (12+ / 0-)

      Funny, his admin had plenty of time to DEFEND DOMA. You know where you can stick your patience, buddy.

    •  I'm all for patience (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, DMiller, corvo, Ms Bluezone, Sue Stone

      And I agree he should be given more time. However that doesn't mean they should be able to slap us in the face while we're waiting for our turn and then come to us asking for money.

      Sorry, but this bank is CLOSED and has been for some time. The Democratic Party loves us when they want our money, muscle, or votes, but when the time comes for them to actually make good on their promises we get very little in return for our support.

      Unfortunately it's either them or the Republicans who hate us even more. The third parties are not viable options because there aren't enough of us to make them viable. The DNC knows this and they take advantage of it.

      Bottom line if Democrats want my vote in 2010 and beyond at minimum they had better stop slapping us in the face while making us wait for our turn. Otherwise my wallet and I are staying home.

      When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

      by Cali Techie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:54:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a solution (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman, AndyMo42

        Bottom line if Democrats want my vote in 2010 and beyond at minimum they had better stop slapping us in the face while making us wait for our turn. Otherwise my wallet and I are staying home.

        And I am sure President Palin will have a justice dept. and appointments to SCOTUS that wholeheartedly back gay rights.

        •  We tend to do better (0+ / 0-)

          under Republican administrations anyway. Not sure why but it's true.

          When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

          by Cali Techie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:02:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And I guess (0+ / 0-)

          if y'all don't want that happening maybe a little pressure is in order.

          I'm tired of being told "give us your vote or else," which is exactly what your statement is. I'm handing it back to you. Give me my rights or I'm not voting for you anymore.

          When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

          by Cali Techie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:38:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agree. In addition, it's not like the civil (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Techie, Sue Stone

        rights section of the White House has been commandeered to assist in bank bailouts, health care, and Afghanistan.  Obama should have people working there on improving individual rights for all (including LGBT) citizens.  I do believe there are already staff working on these issues who are quietly constructing new proposals effectively in a vacuum, but I just wish they would improve their coordination with other departments.  In theory it is not difficult to identify pending DOMA/DADT cases, communicate with those other offices, and at least be aware when major snafus like the recent brief are about to hit the fan.

    •  More Likely (0+ / 0-)

      based on the history of "extreme distaste" for gay people in America, the current political calculation is to keep the 30 percent Red Meat Conservatives from going more batcrap crazy for the duration of the Health Care debate. Of course, this weakens the 10 percent Human Rights portion of our own political actors, so, net gain, 20 percent. This is how "statesmen" calculate, at least in the short term, for political advantage. It is disgusting, and yet, as long as there are 30 percent of American Dead Enders on the God, Guns and Gays issue, these calculations will be made.

      Our job is, as always, to increase the 10 percent Human Rights Crowd to 30 percent, including allies, so that the political calculations seen today and in the past two weeks, simply do not pencil out. I think that is do-able, and we are doing it here. Pressure by rhetoric and coalition building work.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:01:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's not HC, it's latino voters (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, Four of Nine

        If it were HC, they would be fighting harder for the public option. As you can see on the FP of this site today, this is certainly not the case. The public option really isn't that radical, but of course Republicans are opposed to it.

        This is really about the Democratic Party's attempt to lock in Latino voters as a solid Democratic base. They've seen in many cases that Latino voters, many being quite religious themselves, tend to hold similar views towards gay rights as religious Republicans. Look at California. This should worry the LGBT community as Democrats may figure they can gain a few more points with a growing Latino population while losing some of the LGBT base, either due to apathy or party switching (less likely).

        "All [US govt model based countries], without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly." - Bruce Ackerman

        by PoxOnYou on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:49:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, poxonyou

          This is a worry. In an attempt to enlarge the tent, Democrats now include large numbers of Religious Left and Moderates. It is a difficult tradeoff. There is no question that we are better off with a Democratic majority, but the policies which result actually matter.

          With some finesse, progress can be made in Human Rights without offending religious Democrats. I am worried that the finesse is missing so far with the new AG.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:20:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nope (7+ / 0-)

      Patience went out the window long since. If he doesn't start the process now, it will never get started. And then it will be too late. As Martin Luther King famously observed from his jail cell in Birmingham, "Wait!" is the functional and semantic equivalent of "Never!" And "Never!" is not acceptable. Wasn't then, isn't now, never will be.

  •  The WH is seriously tone-deaf on GLBT issues (21+ / 0-)

    if they think this move is going to satisfy anyone.

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

    by Ms Johnson on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:21:52 AM PDT

  •  "reaction"? "scrambling"? (4+ / 0-)

    Really?

    I had thought these kind of signing ceremonies and policy changes were 'on the books' for months.

    Lisa

    Avoid the drama, vote Obama.

    by Boston to Salem on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:22:17 AM PDT

  •  Once Again, Thank You Markos... (15+ / 0-)

    for your strong support of the GLBT community.

    You are a true and firm ally!

  •  Wonderfully said, Kos. Many, many thanks! (10+ / 0-)

    Stonewall was a RIOT!

    by ExStr8 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:23:13 AM PDT

  •  Throw me a friggin bone here! (7+ / 0-)

    This may be Pres. Obamas first action that I could term "tonedeaf" and/or just plain stupid when you get right down to it.

    This sounds like something he must have signed off on when he was very tired or distracted by Bo the dog.

    To think this weak tea was going to make anybody happy is just plain silly.

    The Pres. jumped the tracks on this one.

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:23:25 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, a rare case (so far) of Obama reacting (0+ / 0-)

      rather than being proactive.

      It's stupid, and is only going to grow in intensity until the WH gets a bit less tone deaf (to borrow a term upthread) on this issue.

      Not sure what can be done immediately, though, to improve things? Can Holder be held accountable and demanded to redo the brief?

  •  I've been saying for over a year... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raboof, TJ, gmb, fromer, Four of Nine

    ...that Obama is, and will be, our Gorbachev.

    Very smart, very likable, a product of a system (nomenklatura if you will), well meaning but hamstrung by the very same system that made him and/or unable to think radically outside it.

    There is no doubt that I'd rather have him in charge that the lunatics on the right, but he will not help this country, but preside over its gentle collapse.

    The man who will shape the US to come is here somewhere, but he hasn't shown up on the radar yet. It's not Obama.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:23:46 AM PDT

    •  This Is (a slight) Change We Can Believe In! (0+ / 0-)

      hoo-ray!

      Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
      P.S. I am not a crackpot.
      -Abe Simpson

      by fromer on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:28:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  umm, nope. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, greatcthulu

      Gorbachev actually believed in glasnost.  Obama is doing his damndest to keep BushCo's worst behavior from ever seeing the light of day.

      •  I give credit to Obama for believing... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof, gmb

        ...that the system works and just needs to be put back on the proper rails -- a perestroika-type philosophy.

        Me, I think the system is mostly broken and need a complete overhaul.

        I do like Obama, I feel safe with him, but I don't think he'll walk us out of the desert. (I'm badly mixing metaphors here.)

        OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

        by Lupin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:22:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Okay... now I have to disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boston to Salem, corvo

      When it comes GLBT rights... eh... I don't expect a thing.
      When it comes to other things though, yea, I do expect some big changes, and some of them are going to be subtle but definite, and they won't come out for years to come.
      Energy, yes.
      Economy, yes.
      Health Care... well, I suspect God coming down and talking to Congress and Senate wouldn't be enough at this point.

      So the terrorists of Gitmo are stronger, faster, and better than the USDOJ? The Senate thinks so. My. How "American".

      by RElland on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:57:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right to expect... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof

        ...significant changes, and I do too, but shall we say that, at the very least, the jury is still out on both the economy and health care?

        I get the sense (possibly wrongly) that on the economy, he wants to do the right thing but he's arguably badly advised. (I say this with lots of reserves since we don't know yet what will happen.)

        As far as health care is concerned, I don't think he wants to do the right thing at all (ie single payer). Sorry.

        So, all in all, I could turn out to be wrong, yes, but as we stand today, I'm more inclined to see him as a Gorby than an FDR.

        OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

        by Lupin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:20:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Markos. The Gloves Are Off. (8+ / 0-)

    Read the words Mr. President.  An important part of your base is slipping.

    •  slipping to where exactly? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, jmrichardson

      "They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08

      by bawbie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:30:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of Course I can Only Speak for Myself (8+ / 0-)

        But "Democrats" is looking a little stabby in the backy to me right now.

        FISA

        DODT

        DOMA

        No charges against Bush.

        No Torture docs.

        It's like Bush is sitting on his porch laughing his ass off at us.

      •  Dear Bawbie... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        odum, gmb, bigchin, Flit

        Slipping in this case means "losing enthusiasm." There may be no other "statesman" to turn to, but there is the real possibility that one of the most enthusiastic 10 percent of the American electorate will just be another problem, another thorn in the side of an administration insufficiently interested in Human Rights. The administration does not need thorns. The administration needs enthusiasm, as the President keeps pointing out to us.

        After this, I can count at least 30 to 35 million Americans who will rather sit on their hands when the time comes for service in the push comes to shove fight over health care. We will simply go back to doing what we have always done; we don't depend on anyone else to do our fighing for us. We fight by ourselves. This is Obama's agenda? I don't think so. We are used to it. Obama needs gays and lesbians more than gays and lesbians need Obama. Or rather, Eric Holder does.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:38:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, Predictor

          that is EXACTLY where I am "slipping to".

          It has already included unsubscribing from every single Democratic Party mailing list, including MoveOn, BarackObama.com, etc... because they are doing NOTHING to support the ISSUES I support.

          That means I will no longer respond to their incessant pleas for support and money, or their calls to action.

          That is going to hurt in the long run.

          I will probably always be a reliable vote for them. But if that means they are going to take me for granted, then they lose my feet, my wallet and my inbox.

          Frank

      •  Ask after they've been relocated. n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, corvo, Predictor

        So the terrorists of Gitmo are stronger, faster, and better than the USDOJ? The Senate thinks so. My. How "American".

        by RElland on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:58:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Withdrawal of support and of faith. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, Four of Nine

        It matters.

  •  Wow...This is GOOD! (16+ / 0-)

    it should refrain from treating the gay community like an ATM.

    KUDOS!

    On behalf of my entire state, I apologize for Evan Bayh!

    by CityLightsLover on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:23:59 AM PDT

  •  will be interesting to see how Rush et al (8+ / 0-)

    spin this news.

    In order to attack Obama, they may actually have to come across as pro-gay.

    Dennis Kucinich was right.

    by lisastar on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:24:54 AM PDT

  •  Now I'm convinced Obama WANTS to piss off... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, gmb, fritzrth, Fabian, corvo

    ...people who care about equal rights for all Americans.

    Oh well, guess we elected just another politician.  Whocouldaknown?

    Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
    P.S. I am not a crackpot.
    -Abe Simpson

    by fromer on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:25:43 AM PDT

  •  Somehow I think this all goes back to health care (4+ / 0-)

    and the inordinate fear of this Administration that if the GOP is allowed to latch on to an issue that they can demagogue endlessly, Obama's ability to get health care passed will be compromised in the face of an emboldened GOP minority.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:26:54 AM PDT

  •  I would like to apologize (7+ / 0-)

    for having "been had" by Obama on this. I had a nagging feeling that he was just talkin' shit, and that the McLurkin (sp?) episode was actually more indicative than I thought. God dammit!

    I thought it was great when Hillary was talking about partially keeping the DOMA and Obama came around and said he'd just get rid of it in the primary race.

    turns out he was just blowing hot air, and then turning around, winking to his 'religious' friends, and saying "I got your back on this gay thing".

    feel like an idiot!

    ...That's the way I always heard records — as a circular stained glass window. - Johnny Marr

    by itsbenj on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:27:07 AM PDT

  •  talk about perspective... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, tnichlsn, gmb, fritzrth, craigkg

    did Obama really think this would just go away????

    The God I know says no to H8...

    by crkrjx on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:27:14 AM PDT

  •  Obama will never be able to fill in enough (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem, Irixsh, The Dead Man

    negative space to make everyone happy, that's one lesson I've learned from Dkos.

    •  It's not the negative space he's not occupying... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, gmb

      It's the spaces he has occupied that bother me so much.

      The direct contradictions to the campaign promises he made, the reason I supported him so much, have blown away to "expediency".

  •  Fuck 'em all. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

  •  DOMA Brief (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, binkaroni

    A thought.  We know that the Bushies on the way out the door "embedded" their followers in permanent civil service jobs.  Isn't it possible that the draft was written by one of those holdovers (say a graduate of Regents University Law) and approved by someone sitting in the seat temporarily pending Senate approval of a permanent incumbent?  Which, given Rethugican foot-dragging, is taking a shamefully long time.

    That doesn't excuse the language of the draft or the failure to act on DOMA and DADT, but if this factual supposition is correct makes the circumstances a little less damning.

    Republican Math Deficiency - The only people on Earth to think you can get to 50% + 1 from 46% by subtracting!

    by DrJohnB on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:29:54 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Kos ..... (15+ / 0-)

    because this:

    But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (which, by the way, totally failed to protect Sen. Jon Ensign's marriage). That anger is well justified.

    is the part of the equation that the folks who defend Obama on GLBT issues just don't get.

    In honor of the Obama Administration's actions on GLBT issues during Pride month, Pride 2009 is proclaimed "Back of the Bus Pride Month".!

    by emsprater on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:30:56 AM PDT

    •  Yes. The thing is, it's not just one thing. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, gmb, corvo, emsprater, Ms Bluezone

      At this point, Obama's done (or not done) enough stuff on LGBT issues for there to be cumulative anger.

      I would be willing to listen to reasons why the DoJ might not be reflective of Obama's real stance on gay issues... IF there was anything of substance he had done to support gay issues. There's zip. I appreciate his speaking out on it, but that is not a concrete action for equality. There's been nada.

      I always knew there would be stuff we'd have to pressure Obama on. I am so disappointed that LGBT rights is one of them. That is fucked up. And frankly, stupid of him. Bone-headed, as he might say.

      This is a political decision. I doubt that Obama is personally against gay people getting married, but clearly the big picture is that he's deciding the political cost of supporting LGBT rights is too high.

      And on that, his political instincts are wrong. He's usually a good read of this stuff, but he's wrong. Repealing DADT could be accepted today.

  •  Another President advocated relocation... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, Big Tex, leonard145b

    to solve racial tension before the Civil War. Of course, it didn't get any traction, largely because it would have cost money, and because Frederick Douglass pointed out that anyone born in the US was a US citizen, and entitled to the exact same rights and privileges afforded to any other citizen. That idea didn't go over all that well either, but hey, at least we saved some money, right?

    Thank you, President Obama's DOJ, for Relocation Services! That sure doesn't ring like a lead liberty bell!

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:31:51 AM PDT

  •  Kos, you're not clapping loud enough (19+ / 0-)

    Obama is playing 11-dimensional chess, and he's got a lot on his plate, and you're a crybaby because you haven't gotten everything on your wishlist, and you're just an angry ex-Hillary supporter who wants him to fail.

    Have I covered all of the OFA talking points, or are there a few I missed?

  •  I agree, it's too small a step, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    binkaroni

    it's amazing to me how far things have come in this country when we can be (justifiably) outraged by the President's actions in this.

    He just extended (some) benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

    Surely something that John McCain would not have done, and something that was impossible to even fathom under 8 years of Bush.

    We've made alot of progress to get to the point where we can be outraged by this.

    Hopefully it's just the start.  I think the President will keep his promises.  Ultimately the pressure will prove a distraction and political liability if he does not.

    •  Some benefits? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, corvo

      How about one.. and it's nothing. Relocation assistance for same sex partners? What does that mean exactly? I've moved both by myself and with a partner and I can tell you the difference is pretty negligible.

      When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

      by Cali Techie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:59:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't marginal benefits more insulting... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb

      than doing nothing? At least doing nothing is arguably a question of prioritization.

      But this looks like contempt -- here's a piece of candy, boys and girls! Be grateful!

      •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

        that the President views it that way, although I agree that it can certainly be taken that way.  

        My feeling is that he intends to fulfull his promise at the most opportune time, and the brief filed by the DOJ does not reflect his views.

        To stem the criticism - and also to show (at least in his mind) that he really intends to progress gay issues - I believe the President did what he thought he could do right at this precise moment.

        I wish he was doing more, for sure.  And yet we are only 4 months into his administration.  I'm willing to wait and see how things progress, and I haven't lost faith that Mr. Obama will keep his promises.

        Obviously only time will tell.

        •  This is politics, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, Ms Bluezone

          it's not about Obama's personal views or intentions. On the one hand, it's a foot in the door. But on the other, it's a very weak sop to an angry constituency, clearly sending the signal that not only are they a low priority (we knew that), but that they can be taken for granted.

          Really, who cares what Obama thinks? What matters is what his administration does -- this isn't an authoritarian system where the Dear Leader's feelings are what drives the system.

          Mr. Obama doesn't keep promises. His administration as a corporate body does. Mr. Obama himself has, at best, veto power over administrative acts if he notices them in time.

      •  It rather insults my intelligence (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, gmb, corvo, DKinUT, Predictor, chiefscribe

        that apparently the admin thinks giving a small handful of people a tiny token of benefits will distract from from holding him to his campaign promises.

        It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

        by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:18:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  distract? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't really think this is intended as a distraction so that folks won't hold him to his campaign promises.  

          Obama said, after all, he "liked" it when a protestor shouted to him in California to keep his promises.

          I do think we are being manipulated to the point where Obama thought he had to do something to stem the criticism and show some good will.  I think it's genuine.  And I believe he will ultimately do much more for gay rights.

          But who knows, maybe I'm just hopelessly naive.  

    •  But moving expenses are already a tax deductible (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, DKinUT

      item, so the federal government has been subsidizing everyone to the tune of 25-33% of their moving/relocation expenses.  Sure, the full benefit of this is not chump change, but it has a strong whiff of incrementalism to it.  Are Obama's hands really tied so strongly that he couldn't do more?

  •  Discuss these issues with Dan Choi this Sunday (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn, Boston to Salem, gmb, Fabian, craigkg

    One of the recent voices to emerge on behalf of our LGBT community has been that of  Lt. Dan Choi. In just a short time, after being kicked out of the military for being gay, Dan's become a fierce advocate for the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, as well as other LGBT issues.

    I am part of a group, Asian Pacific Americans for Progress (formerly AAPI's for Dean) that will be hosting a video conference this Sunday with Lt. Choi.  Please join us this Sunday at 7 pm ET/4 pm PT.

    http://www.apaforprogress.org/...

  •  Okay (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, corvo, leonard145b, Predictor

    who in the Obama administration is doing the equivalent of ::sniff:: "Let them eat cake!" ?

    So the terrorists of Gitmo are stronger, faster, and better than the USDOJ? The Senate thinks so. My. How "American".

    by RElland on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:33:27 AM PDT

  •  But see, kos, "We don't have the votes!" (13+ / 0-)
    That's always the excuse that we hear from both the Obama administration and the Democrats in the House and Senate for progressive issues that the people want, whether it's single-payer healthcare (or Jesus, even a public option!), impeaching Shrub and Co. for their massive war crimes, or bills related to GLBT equality. We don't have the votes. That's the same old tired bullshit we've been hearing from the Democrats since they got the majority Congress in January 2007. When is enough going to be enough? When are the Democrats in Congress going to figure out that we're not that stupid, and we're not going to buy the same old tired "We don't have the votes" bullshit anymore?

    /rant off

    "Favoring the use of torture is not a political position, it's a mental illness." - Devilstower

    by boofdah on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:34:21 AM PDT

  •  Folks, Like Our Friend Markos... (13+ / 0-)

    we cannot back down on this one.

    We have sat back quietly waiting for Obama to really show he is a fierce advocate for GLBT people.

    Yes, he has a lot on his plate. Yes. some of those items can be argued as more important.

    But this insulting DOJ brief needs a direct response from the White House. I am not talking about defending DOMA, I'm talking about the language used to defend it.

    I fully support all GLBT people and their allies to withhold financial support from the White House and DNC until we get a response on the DOJ brief.

    This is our marker in the sand.

    We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!

    Non-GLBT people can scratch their heads and not understand what all the fuss is about. Even some non-self respecting GLBT people can too.

    I am sick and tired of being treated like the embarassing uncle in the closet our well meaning relatives need to keep hidden or quiet.

    Folks, it is plain and simple - this is about human rights, equal rights, self respect and human dignity and decency.

    President Obama - we wait for your response!

    •  Fukin A ! Up or Down ? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      odum, gmb, leonard145b

      If I just had one day when I wasnt all confused

      by FuzzyDice on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:39:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And if Obama doesn't buck thousands of years... (0+ / 0-)

      ...of predjudice in 6 months, then he is a failure?

      I live in Kansas.  Here is what would happen if Obama, through whatever mechanism, made gay marriage the law of the land:

      The Kansas Legislature, under leadership of our new Gov. Brownback (unopposed in GOP primary, Dems have no one on bench to take him on- you have no idea how scary this is) rams a measure through the legislature refusing to acknowledge said marriage/partnerships in Kansas- and it winds it way to SCOTUS for a couple of years... and then... all bets are off.

      What if the 5 person conservative majority still existed and sided with states (10th Amendment)-- I don't agree w/the approach but that's exactly what Scalia and Co. would do.  Then you've set the issue back how many more years.

      •  yawn. n/t (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb, corvo, leonard145b, Ms Bluezone

        "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

        by bigchin on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:49:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who is talking about a failure? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, gmb, corvo, Hannibal

        We are talking about a DOJ brief that adds further credence to those who oppose same-sex marriage and gays in general.

        That brief was more then odious language - it ADDED to legal precedence that can be used against GLBT people in the future either in a court of law or in political arguments.

        The language was inexcusable and unnecessary. Even if I buy the argument the DOJ had no choice but to defend DOMA (which I do not), they could have used language not so corrosive to GLBT people.

        No President Obama is hardly a failure, overall. And this gay American will decide to vote for him in 2012 on his ACTIONS between now and then and NOT just on his record on gay rights.

        In the meantime, I will voice my criticism when he deserves it and my praise when he deserves that (like his masterful approach to Iran right now).

      •  Well said! GLBT community needs a big picture n/t (0+ / 0-)

        You don't make people less extreme by refusing to talk with them...

        by The Progressive Majority on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:13:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Big whoop on your armageddon scenario. Let (0+ / 0-)

        the KS legislature take some new regressive law to the SCOTUS.  I would rather this be fought in the open than pussyfooted around.  

      •  It's like you people (0+ / 0-)

        don't understand the concept of political pressure in order to pass/repeal laws. Your position reveals how black and white you're seeing things.

        AAC: Support local arts

        by jamesia on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:55:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama the politician and Obama the man (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmrichardson

      I'm getting pretty frustrated reading all of this. From what I can tell the GLBT community would have Obama lead a gay rights death march. The Democratic party can't risk being seen as the "gay" party.

      I'm not trying to be offensive here, but there needs to be some political realism. The Democrats are relying on getting the Hispanic vote on the national level - the last thing Obama needs is to make himself unecassarily vulnerable on these issues. There are legislators from districts who can safely push forward on this. Obviously Obama is personally well disposed towards the GLBT community so all in all I would say you do have a fierce advocate in Obama the man, and you have a fierce advocate in Obama the president when you view him relative to his surroundings and his predacessor.

      You don't make people less extreme by refusing to talk with them...

      by The Progressive Majority on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:12:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Up to this point, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Predictor, Ms Bluezone

    one would have been hard pressed to come up with an incident where the Obama administration had made a serious misstep.  Early on, there were issues with a few nominees, but that was about it.  I think this is Obama's first full face plant.

    -5.13,-5.64; EVERYTHING is an approximation! -Hans A. Bethe

    by gizmo59 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:34:46 AM PDT

  •  Thank you, Kos - n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "I had seen the universe as it begins for all things. It was, in reality, a child's universe, a tiny and laughing universe." Loren Eiseley

    by cadejo4 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:34:54 AM PDT

  •  Yeah this will help (12+ / 0-)

    This could benefit tens of people.

    But you hit the nail on the head. This outrage isn't about INACTION. It's about the failure to respond to the DOJ's pathetic brief defending DOMA.

    I don't expect immediate action on all of the issues facing the GLBT community, but I don't expect my "fierce advocate" to allow such venom to be spewed and not say ANYTHING.

    Love should be everything or not at all

    by kansasr on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:34:59 AM PDT

  •  Very little -- is it a bit late? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, DKinUT, Cali Techie

    As a card-carrying GLBT community member (the G), a former Obama campaigner, and many other designations, I've been patiently (and more recently not so patiently) waiting for actions such as this.  This particular action could have been taken in the President's first hundred days; so it's welcome.

    But -- the main point in the post is this:

    But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act ....  That anger is well justified.

    I totally concur.  It's like throwing us a bone, but little more.  In the same breath that the Administration is announcing this, it also needs to underscore that it wants to see action on Hate Crimes, on ENDA, and that it will send to Congress legislation repealing DOMA (so as to provide real health benefits), Don'tAskDon'tTell.

    I still feel the Administration will get it right -- but it's getting high time to do this.

    •  Why should Obama shoot himself in the foot? (0+ / 0-)

      Why are you asking Obama to make himself so politically vulnerable?

      Democrats are going to need the Hispanic vote, which is actually relatively socially conservative. That's what this really all comes down to and its not as if this politcal posturing was unforseeable. Do you want them to lose 10% of the Hispanic vote to Republicans? It makes much more sense for Obama to allow these things to get through the legislature at their own pace - there's no need for him to make himself a target. A passive role is much safer.

      He obviously has warm feelings for the GLBT community, it's pretty clear for example that he personally wants gay marriage legalized. There are many Democrats from districts who can safely push these things forward,  let them and be secure in the knowledge that the man in the white house does indeed agree with you.

      You don't make people less extreme by refusing to talk with them...

      by The Progressive Majority on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:05:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BREAKING UPDATE! 10:35 A.M EST (19+ / 0-)

    Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees to Be Allowed to Join Softball Team!

    Now will all you angry homos keep the $$$ coming in and let us concentrate on more important matters?

  •  The administration's tin ear and (11+ / 0-)

    insensitivity on this is staggering. The campaign showed so much finesse, but I'm really starting to wonder if they picked a bunch of lousy "experts" to come work in DC after the win. The disappearance of smart nuance is frightening.

    How stupid do you have to be to write that brief in the first place? And then follow it up with this weak sauce announcement?

    It's almost to the point where they need to do something to prove they're not actually anti-LGBT rights. I would have backed them up in the past, given them the benefit of the doubt, but it feels like there are some bigoted/stupid people in positions they should not be--or that brief and this insensitive move would never have happened. This is high school level stuff.

    (-8.38, -8.00) "If Republicans will quit telling lies about Democrats then we'll quit telling the truth about Republicans." --Adlai Stevenson

    by hyperstation on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:36:49 AM PDT

  •  Your right Kos. Let's elect a Rep. in 2012. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    Patience grasshopper.  Patience.

  •  You're, I mean. Bah. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Methinks Kos is pandering w/this post. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem
  •  I hope this fight derails health care (0+ / 0-)

    and fixing the environment!!!

    pre-emptive war · collective punishment · torture | 21st century values you won't get prosecuted for

    by The Dead Man on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:43:55 AM PDT

    •  I hope that was a snark. (0+ / 0-)

      http://politicz.wordpress.com/

      by GlowNZ on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:54:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nah... (0+ / 0-)

        I'd rather jeopardize lives in the short term and place the entire human race in jeopardy for kicks.

        Of course its snark :p

        pre-emptive war · collective punishment · torture | 21st century values you won't get prosecuted for

        by The Dead Man on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:56:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  An excuse to really fix health care (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb

      So long as you raise a snarky answer, here's a slightly less snarky one.  Obama can't offer health benefits because those are proscribed by DOMA, which he's afraid to touch.  But he can moot the issue:

      I was going to offer health benefits to gay partners of federal employees, but such employee health benefits are prohibited to federal employees because of an unfortunate law that remains on the books.  But then the issue only arises because of our obsolete system of employer-based health care.  Therefore I am putting my weight behind a universal health care system, one that is not tied to employment at all, in which every American will be covered from birth by a full health insurance plan.  Gay or straight, married or single, young or old, employed or not, rich or poor, sick or well, everyone will be covered.  This is the best equality we can provide.

      See?  It's an esay fix.

  •  is that relocation assistence a hint???!!! (5+ / 0-)

    hoping Obama wises up!

  •  This is great! (0+ / 0-)

    The angry reaction of LGBT community is a political windfall for Mr. Obama. It demonstrates that he is not an extreme leftist, that he is a centrist, and that he is willing to give due consideration to the values of those he disagrees with on the right.

    The best position for any politician is to be shot at from both directions. The fury from the LGBT community is establishing that for Mr. Obama.

    While I endorse the goals of the LGBT community in obtaining full civil rights, I think that there's a lot of political naivete out there. You can't force society to progress faster than its natural rate of evolution. Gay marriage is a good example. It started too early and triggered a nasty backlash. It was a contributing factor to the electoral loss by Mr. Kerry. Now that many states have anti-gay marriage laws on the books, progress will be even harder.

    I believe that gays would have been better advised to take matters step by step, with incremental advances. The first step should have been proper visitation rights in hospitals, because it's so obviously cruel to deny such rights. But instead, gays pressed for the whole enchilada, and now they've got a tougher fight on their hands. When we look back from the vantage point of, say, 2030, I think we'll conclude that grabbing for too much merely slowed the overall advance of this noble effort.

  •  Yes, I Defend Obama (9+ / 0-)

    To borrow a phrase from Muskegon Critic.  :-)

    I'm still tremendously glad and proud that he is now our President, and endlessly pleased that for the first time ever I actually got the person I wanted for President since before the primaries began.  I'd become quite used to voting for the Democrat only because they were the Democrat.

    But on this, one of my core issues as a long-time "friend of the family," enough is enough, Mr. President.  This is one many reasons I worked so much to get you elected, but it is one of the most important.  Fix this.  Fix it now, or it will be more than just your gay supporters who will be profoundly disappointed in you and your administration.

    End DOMA and DADT now.

    The time for waiting is over.  I have the sig I have for a reason....

    "No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." --MLK

    by Progressive Witness on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:45:39 AM PDT

  •  I've got a question... (7+ / 0-)

    ...what political calculation dictates Obama should suddenly turn right on gay & lesbian issues?

    I think Obama has enough sense to realize  since the right still thinks he is a Muslim born in south Kenya, pandering to them on gay & lesbian issues is a non-starter.

    So somebody please explain to me Obama's sudden redneck take on gays & lesbians.

    He is pissing off an important segment of the Democratic voting block whole concurrently illicting a big yawn from the right.

    I can't figure it out.

    Dear no hearings on torture because of political theater: Sonia Sotomayor called & wants her "you've got to be fucking kidding me" back.

    by wyvern on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:46:20 AM PDT

    •  He's willing to piss off (3+ / 0-)

      the 1% of the population that gets excited about this issue (which includes me, incidentally), in favor of not pissing off the 99% who don't care at all. When Obama campaigned for "change," he wasn't talking about a hard left turn. He was talking about having a president who pays attention to everyone, not just the people who share his personal ideology. This is exactly why he's so popular, despite his growing unpopularity in the Kos community.

  •  and relocation assistance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb

    oughta be real popular when we're losing 500k jobs a month.

    Dennis Kucinich was right.

    by lisastar on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:47:08 AM PDT

  •  And it said gays were no better than the KKK! (0+ / 0-)

    Though it didn't do that either.

    Rub raw the sores of discontent - Saul Alinsky

    by JayGR on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:47:13 AM PDT

  •  Who wrote it? (5+ / 0-)

    In his administration?

    Yes, there's a lot on Obama's plate. But apparently, people in his administration have the time to write an insulting and denigrating legal brief in defense of bigoted legislation.

    Andrew Sullivan finds out

    W Scott Simpson, a Bush administration holdover. You can read a previous decision of his here (PDF) from 2008. So it becomes clearer. The harsh rhetoric, the gratuitous attacks on our relationships ... they were written by someone who was given an award by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

    So who signed off on this brief? Who is responsible for this mess? Or are gays that low a priority for DOJ?

    It took Bush 8 years to get these people into the Govt as Civil servants, which if anyone has worked for the Govt under Civil Service protection, they have to commits acts far heinous to get fired.

    As for who signed off on it? I don't know, but I'm guessing Holder didn't. It was probably another hold-over. We were warned last year about the concept of burrowing. This as good example as it's going to get. My guess is the Right is yucking it up over this one as the Political Appointees struggle to balance their backing of Unions with the harsh language used in the DOMA brief. Regardless of who the employee is , the Civil Service is bound to protect them.

    Things just aren't as simple as they are made out to be. Equally, it's a shame that Andrew Sullivan uncovered this as a Conservative and is not blaming Obama as people here are so eager to start the bashing. I didn't see any mention of who wrote in the Outrage diaries yesterday and the ones that are sure to come today.

    Yes Obama could make a statement about the employee. I hope he does, But I doubt it, because it's delicate balancing act. He has to not only respect the Civil Services but he also has to show an arm's length away from the DOJ since it was so politicized under Bush.

    Unlike Political Appointees, Civil Service people can't be fired for the offensive language. It's hard to fire them for anything.

    Bottom? What Bottom?.

    by Dburn on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:48:05 AM PDT

    •  Except he's already influenced the DoJ (6+ / 0-)

      he also has to show an arm's length away from the DOJ since it was so politicized under Bush.

      He's already said explicitly he won't let DoJ prosecute torturers inside the CIA. How was that keeping it at arm's length?

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:56:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ↑ An inconvenient truth. nt (4+ / 0-)

        It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

        by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:25:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In consultation with Holder (0+ / 0-)

        He also mentioned that they wouldn't be prosecuted if they obeyed the laws. So there was a disclaimer on the end. This was also after intense debate with Holder involved.

        This is a far cry from  language used in a brief by a former Bush hire . The justice dept for the most part has minimal contact with the white house. Charts were shown in what the DOJ should look like vs what it was in Bush's white house. That doesn't mean on major issues they won't consult. Obama making the announcement himself rather than Holder is consistent with the "Buck stops here" approach.

        He had already made a statement on DOMA that this was a legislative issue. That means policy. Not operating rules.

        Arms length means they won't dictate the running of the dept and interfere with their duties.  

        The implication here is that Obama himself virtually wrote the brief or signed off on it. I don't see Obama signing off on the language that was used.

        If nothing else he is politically astute enough he would have never let the language go through if if he had operated like Bush and seen it before presentation. Since policy had been set the Justice Dept did what it did.  

        In contrast to the above, Holder obviously felt felt that throwing low level people in jail for high level policy was a major issue that required consultation. This only came after Obama ordered the release of the Memos.

        One even has to wonder if Obama was aware of the brief on DOMA was being presented. I've seen no proof that would indicate that this was anything but the Justice Dept acting independently.

        But hey, lets not let inconvenient facts like who wrote the brief get in the way of emotional Obama bashing.

        Bottom? What Bottom?.

        by Dburn on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:48:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was pressure from Panetta on Obama (0+ / 0-)

          then transferred to Holder. And it wasn't if they obeyed the laws. It was if they followed the obviously bullshit justifications for torture in the Bybee/Bradbury memos.

          And no, the implication is not that obama wrote it. The implication is that the buck stops with Obama and this lawyer should have been taken out back to the shed before this ever saw a courtroom.

          And you can shove your last paragraph.

          "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

          by heart of a quince on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:58:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So, no change for GBLT? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, gmb, Predictor

      Just more Bushies on issues that matter to us.

      It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

      by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:26:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  save the hysteria until after the announcement (7+ / 0-)

    We don't know yet if this executive memorandum truly does not cover health and retirement benefits due to DOMA or some other factors.

    Also, please stop with the false meme, apparently started by Chuck Todd, that an Executive Memorandum is somehow inferior to an Executive Order and expires automatically at the end of the President's term.  That is false, from what I've been able to find on the subject.  If anyone can prove otherwise (other than referencing Chuck Todd), please do so.

    •  Save the accusations of "hysteria" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, gmb, jamesia, Predictor

      and we can meet in the middle.

      It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

      by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:25:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I call it hysteria because (0+ / 0-)

        People are up in arms about this before details have been made available.  Yes, if this turns out to not include health benefits, that's pretty sucky.  But wait until after we know for sure, please.  If that's so, it's because of DOMA, which hopefully gets repealed.  And there's a bill currently in Congress which would make health and retirement benefits available if this memorandum does not.  So I think it's fitting to call it Hysteria when people are deriding Obama for this and taking it as a slap in the face, before we know exactly the details and effects of the directive.  

        And Hysteria is also fitting for this because people are believing and spreading a probable falsehood about "executive memorandum" vs. "executive orders."

        •  They are taking the New York Times (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, gmb, jamesia, Predictor, chiefscribe

          at it's word, I'd hardly call that "hysteria."

          But stick to your condescending vocabulary if you must. I find it insulting as it's used so often to lump measured critiques in with accusation of drama queen, hissy fit, overly emotional, etc.

          It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

          by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:55:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  whatever (0+ / 0-)

            I'm gay myself.  Spare me the vocabulary critique.

            The NYT article is based on speculation and work done by The Advocate.  It may turn out to be true .. but they don't know any more than we do until the Memorandum is issued.

  •  Well written. We are putting the administration (8+ / 0-)

    on notice appropriately. I hope Obama's advisors are reading this.

  •  I now expect a boom in Israeli Gaza sub-divisions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, corvo, Four of Nine
    and plenty of Netinyahoo boosting. I read the other day that Obama has called up the name of Jesus twice as much as did Bush in his first six months..That's kinda weerd. Methinks we expected way tooo much from a typical politician. Must be genetic

    If I just had one day when I wasnt all confused

    by FuzzyDice on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:52:00 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I bet Obama won't even wear the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DKinUT, Escamillo

    ribbon, either.

  •  "Can't unring a bell" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan

    --best line of the day.

    "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:53:13 AM PDT

  •  This diary is total bullshit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alkatt, Geotpf
    Kos.

    Really its pathetic.

    http://politicz.wordpress.com/

    by GlowNZ on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:53:15 AM PDT

  •  What do you want Obama to do? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, GlowNZ

    He can't undo DOMA. Either Congress or the courts will have to do that. And do you think there are the votes?

    I don't get it. What can Obama do? He doesn't have a magic wand.

    It's hard out here for a conservative white male. Who will be Obama 2.0? Dream Team 2012 The Huckster and The Slutty Flight Attendant

    by Village expects idiot home soon on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:53:29 AM PDT

    •  Apparently they want everythign repealed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkatt, GN1927

      by Pbama RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND OR FUCK HIM.

      This hysteria is just pathetic.

      http://politicz.wordpress.com/

      by GlowNZ on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:55:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pressure is not Hysteria... (7+ / 0-)

        Your Hysteria Accusation is a projection of what you fear, I fear.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:02:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You call this pressure? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alkatt, Boston to Salem, bvig, Escamillo

          This is a counterproductive feeding frenzy so completely and utterly screwed up and out of control that a MAJOR change in policy (extension of benefits to GLBTs) is somehow cast as negative!

          This is disgusting and as someone who believes that GLBTs are crucial to any civilized country, count me out of this counterproductive, hateful bullshit.

          "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

          by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:17:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Feeding Frenzy (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gmb, GN1927, Ms Bluezone

            always reminds me of those nature documentaries about the Orinoco where a buffalo is consumed by pirahnas.

            Its not hateful to pressure statemen to do what is right, and if they don't do it now, they know how people think, and in what proportions, for the next time the issue surfaces, unlike the poor buffalo.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:25:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This isn't pressure! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, Escamillo

              Absolutely senseless dismissal of a positive policy change while a bunch of people run around blogs pretending that 2 citations in a f-ing legal brief DRAFTED BY SOMEONE ELSE outside of POTUS' influence or even knowledge is somehow a reflection of his belief system.  And I guess if enough people say it as many times as possible, it becomes true.  I see nothing wrong with attempting to dialogue with Atty Gen Holder and asking for the omission of these precedents in future legal briefs involving GLBTs because there is a larger context at play.

              But this here, what's going on in blogs, isn't positive and it isn't progress IMO.  It's the opposite of that.

              "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

              by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:34:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This was in the works for weeks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GN1927

                So Kos' nonsense (who did he get it from, I wonder?) about this is nonsense.  It's not a reaction to anything from the past week, no matter how much certain professional screamers want you to think it.

                By the way, the guy making you all jump like trained monkeys as he presses your outrage buttons is the same guy who went on a similar vendetta against Howard Dean three years ago.

                Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:40:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Aargh! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GN1927

                I meant to respond to the person above you.  Sorry!

                Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:41:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So Let's Dialogue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GN1927

                With the AG. I think we may have his attention now.

                Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:44:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Dialogue is a frickin' NOUN. Talk is the VERB. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's hard out here for a conservative white male. Who will be Obama 2.0? Dream Team 2012 The Huckster and The Slutty Flight Attendant

                  by Village expects idiot home soon on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:48:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nice Bio.. (0+ / 0-)

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:27:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I speak English as a first language. (0+ / 0-)

                      Not only do you slaughter the English language, you go after people too. Nice.

                      My sig refers to Bush, who I did not anticipate would steal TWO elections.

                      Facts. What a concept.

                      It's hard out here for a conservative white male. Who will be Obama 2.0? Dream Team 2012 The Huckster and The Slutty Flight Attendant

                      by Village expects idiot home soon on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:08:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Just an observation (0+ / 0-)

                        I find that people who are so excruciatingly finicky about the particular part of speech of a particular word, which, if you listen to public discourse, is now both a noun and a verb, and then do not have the courtesy to provide any information about who they are or why they post, are often the kind of 'drive by' blogger who may be considered uninformed or, at worst, deceptive.

                        We are on the same side, and yet, you seem dedicated to tearing apart any possible bonds which might be created. In this latest response, you imply that people who speak English as a second or third language may be less human, or less able to voice an opinion, than you are.

                        In response to your fastidiousness concerning grammar, I will now dedicate myself to Queen's Rules English, and to refrain from cliche and sentence fragments such as; "Facts," or "What a concept."

                        I am honored to debate you, sir.

                        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                        by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:40:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, I live in the Midwest. (0+ / 0-)

                          I can assure you there is no group of people from outside the US, who speak English as a second language, who have less command of the English language than some Americans who live in the Midwest.

                          For instance, there is no requirement for teachers from our 'best' colleges to ever use an adverb. I struggle every day to retain my use of language in a correct manner, surrounded by people who regard 'I seen him wantin' to done eat' as communication.

                          I'm sorry. I'm in a bad mood. And I'm a girl.

                          It's hard out here for a conservative white male. Who will be Obama 2.0? Dream Team 2012 The Huckster and The Slutty Flight Attendant

                          by Village expects idiot home soon on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:14:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Dollars to donuts (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OregonOak

                  most of those expressing all of this rage have pretty much no intention to study the DOJ and what it does, study the construction of briefs, and come up with a coherent argument as to why (a) these particular precedents aren't indispensible to a brief defending current law; (b) even dry recitations of precedents in legal briefs aren't divorced from a larger real-life context; and (c) although this is nonstandard, there's merit to Holder considering the reality that law is inherently policy-based and there are strong policy arguments for dispensing with the use of these precedents in briefs in this context altogether.

                  Dollars to donuts, people are going to rage and then just jump to the next issue.

                  "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                  by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:52:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Excellent (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GN1927

                    Your comment here is the most intelligent, analytical, relevant and prescriptive list of ideas for discussion with the AG I have seen on this thread.

                    I agree with it all, except the last sentence. We whose lives depend on the AG and the DOJ to do the right thing also must depend on them to get the details right. We cannot, given what we do in life, all become Solicitor Generals or have that expertise. Thank you for pointing out specifically how the process should be amended to prevent worse outcomes for gay people as these policies and administrative decisions are made.

                    The message is, of course.. Take Care. Take a Lot of Care. People's lives depend not only on the outcome, but the process of how things are changed. I trust the DOJ to do that, but they need to know of some concern out here.

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:33:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Trust me OregonOak (0+ / 0-)

                      my concept of law is a pretty unorthodox one.  This is the debate I wish we were having: can one claim that professionalism requires dry construction of legal arguments, in the context of something like a DOJ brief, that are wholly divorced from the practical and real implications of the themes which they carry?  Is there any legitimacy to arguing that as a matter of policy, even an independent DOJ as an extension a progressive WH has the responsibility to craft documents with care to not spread regressivism even in the course of vigorous defense of an existing law which the WH anticipates will be overturned?

                      I have an unorthodox view in that I do think that there is that responsibility.

                      We whose lives depend on the AG and the DOJ to do the right thing also must depend on them to get the details right.  We cannot, given what we do in life, all become Solicitor Generals or have that expertise.

                      Point very taken.  Very taken.

                      "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                      by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  A minor change in policy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamesia, cloudbustingkid

            That doesn't extend health benefits but is being sold as if it does, so long as you don't read the fine print, and can't extend those benefits because of existing law that Obama has now flip flopped on (removing DOMA from his eight seven promises to gays).

            It's not the change that people object to, it's the insult to their intelligence.

            •  Where has he flip-flopped on DOMA? (0+ / 0-)

              "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

              by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:15:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He no longer plans to seek its repeal. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jamesia
                •  Where has he ever said (0+ / 0-)

                  he'd veto DOMA repeal legislation or anything of the sort?  My God, in accordance with what's in his power, POTUS just extended benefits in recognition of the absolute legitimacy of GLBT partnerships and people are pushing back against that bit of progress, and now there are accusations that he wants to stop DOMA repeal?

                  Please back this up, please do.

                  "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                  by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:23:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  nice soft shoe, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gmb, jamesia

                    slip right by the part where he promised to work for  it's repeal and now, all he has to do is NOT veto it to remain a hero?

                    It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

                    by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:38:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well seeing that the passives (0+ / 0-)

                      in the blogosphere have no f-ing intention to attempt to whip votes ourselves, pray tell me where President Obama backed away from his intention to carry the weight of everyone and try to get this through congress himself?

                      Because I haven't seen anything of the sort.

                      "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                      by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:53:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He took DOMA off the website (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gmb, Ms Bluezone

                        Some consider that telling. I'm sure you're not among them.

                        It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

                        by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:11:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Jesus Christ (0+ / 0-)

                          Unbelievable.  You're not serious.

                          I'm outright laughing at this point.

                          You know what?  More power to you.  There is a cohort of people here who think that good strategy to address any number of issues is slamming (not merely criticizing, slamming, like this comments thread) a clear progressive ally in the WH.  Not helping to whip votes, not helping to develop grassroots plans to get Congress off of its ass, but somehow spreading stupid POTUS memes on blogs is contributing something.

                          And then when POTUS does exactly as he's planned to do all along, these passives will in fact take credit and insist that sensationalism and hatefulness somehow yielded a progressive result.

                          What am I supposed to say to this?  I'm just tapped out at this point.

                          "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                          by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:16:08 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think this is productive for either of us (0+ / 0-)

                            You could model you own suggestions by compiling that list of DOMA reapeal friendly Congress critters yourself.

                            But I'm guessing you'll just keep ranting and cursing in every GBLT diary you find.

                            It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

                            by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:22:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please more hyperbole (0+ / 0-)

                            Activism on this site should be more than these periodic feeding frenzies on POTUS.

                            But I'm guessing you'll just keep ranting and cursing in every GBLT diary you find.

                            Is that backed up by the facts?

                            "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                            by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:39:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm sure you consider your ranting and raving (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ms Bluezone

                            on every GBLT diary thread about how ranting and raving is counterproductive is a productive use of your time.

                            Carry on.

                            It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

                            by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Every" diary thread? (0+ / 0-)

                            First off, this is the issue of the day.  When folks were running around screaming about Obamabots and torture apologists during the picture release controversy, I did the same thing.

                            Again:
                            Activism on this site should be more than these periodic feeding frenzies on POTUS.

                            It just is what it is.

                            "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                            by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:03:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Counterproductive? Seems it endowed Fed employees (0+ / 0-)

            with same sex spousal benefits, sooner rather than later.

            It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

            by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:37:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neat trick (0+ / 0-)

              President Obama gets ZERO credit for progressive movement, while those who sat on blogs spreading malicious memes about his administration somehow deserve credit for an executive decision which was more than likely in the works for weeks.

              Neat trick.

              So your dancing pet in the WH gets absolutely no credit for his work, while self-important bloggers can claim to have saved the world by "demanding," at times nastily, that someone do exactly what the fuck he planned to do in the first place.  

              Must be really, really nice.  Someone else does the work, others get the credit.  This is just tiresome.

              "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

              by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:57:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Pathetic, nonsensical, counterproductive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alkatt, Escamillo

        I'm sure POTUS is taking notes in terms of the usefulness of the progressive blogosphere in terms of allying with an obviously imperfect, but good, WH to actually...ya know, get shit done.

        Kos and many others just f-ing threw POTUS under the bus with this dismissal of the change in benefits policy.

        "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

        by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:16:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your hysteria over criticism and pressure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmb

        is pathetic.

        It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

        by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:36:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If he can do nothing, neither should he promise (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, DMiller, corvo, Hannibal, poxonyou, ElsieElsie

      Gender neutral marriage. NOW.

      by Montreal Progressive on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:57:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jec, musing85, gmb, corvo, chiefscribe

        Obama promised to be a fierce advocate.  So far I haven't seen any fierce advocacy except for one fiercely homophobic brief.  Look, I'm not expecting him to do anything he can't.  I am expecting him to do what he can and not do things that are unnecessary and counterproductive.

        And for those who counsel patience, I'm 55 now and I first realized I was gay when I was 15.  That's 40 years of patience, and my patience is wearing thin.

        •  So true...I just wish he'd say something, anythin (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb

          I know he's got to change opinion and policies incrementally but he's doing nothing to effect change. And this brief just filed actually advocates against forward movement on GLBT issues.

          For goodness sakes say something, anything Mr. President!

    •  He can start the process (7+ / 0-)

      He can not make matters worse than they already are. He can start being the "fierce advocate" for gay rights he's always claiming to be.

      So far, all we've gotten from him on that front is epic fail. Nobody expects him to get it all done in a day. But he isn't even trying.

    •  Actually, he could make some (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, Predictor, chiefscribe

      pretty public demands that Congress haul ass on it.

    •  How about he actually shows some leadership? nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, poxonyou, Predictor
    •  What I want him to do is what he said he'd do. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, julifolo, Ms Bluezone

      What the President can and should do.

      The White House needs to do, immediately, what it can do itself, and tell the world why in that sparkling oratory that the President is capable of.  None of the moves below takes significant political capital nor will cost anyone any support.  Here's the key, without the WH being willing to "do the bare minimum that he can do by himself without political damage", we have no reason whatsoever to believe the President is honest.

      1.  The President can halt military discharges under DADT, he should do so immediately.
      1.  The President can send a DADT repeal bill to Congress, Sen. Harry Reid asked for one.
      1.  The President needs to give an out-loud speech on or before the 40th anniversary of Stonewall.  Shirtless, at SF Pride.  (Okay, the last bit isn't gonna happen.)
      1.  The President needs to acknowledge the noxiousness of the DOJ brief on DOMA and apologize on behalf of himself and/or the administration.
      1.  The president needs to restore DOMA repeal to the White House web site.
      1.  The president needs to frame all of our rights, including marriage equality, as a matter of federal Equal Protection, and indicate that he believes that DOMA violates Equal Protection.

      And.

      In his speech, the President needs to lay out those things we want that he can not accomplish.  UAFA, trans-inclusive ENDA, hate crimes, full federal rights, DOMA repeal and DADT repeal all must be discussed in turn.  In addressing each one individually, the President must outline the challenges he sees to accomplishing these goals individually (Congressional support, political support, etc.), lay out a plan and a specific time frame, no longer than his first term.  If the WH wants to rebuild trust, it has to make promises that can be tested over time, and trust will be rebuilt as he upholds those testable promises.

      In his speech, the President indicate that he understands the link between all this prejudice and QUEER PEOPLE DYING.  He needs to understand and communicate the established link between social prejudice and the epidemic of queer teen suicide (a few thousand deaths a year), as well as the recent Emory University research that shows that same-sex marriage bans create environments which themselves result in thousands of new HIV cases every year.  If the President is not willing to fiercely advocate these most pressing, urgent reasons to fight LGBT discrimination, he can not be considered a friend of the community.

      That's what the President can do.

  •  The Mormon attorney for Obama was a classy touch (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn, gmb, jamesia, Predictor, chiefscribe

    We have gone way beyond adding insult to injury, but that really took the cake. Anyone find out how much money that guy gave (if anything) to help pass Prop 8?

  •  Obama didn't write that line in the brief (4+ / 0-)

    nor did he read it.  The Administration owes an apology for the line, and an explanation for defending the DOMA, but let's put it in some perspective.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:54:30 AM PDT

  •  This is certainly good news (0+ / 0-)

    for John McCain's campaign (said with a lot less snark than usual).

    "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:54:33 AM PDT

  •  Kos: Thank you (8+ / 0-)

    I was waiting for you to weigh-in on this.

    According to my poll, 91% of GLBT and 53% of straights think that Obama doesn't care about GLBT people anymore.

    Thank you for not being an Obama apologist on this issue like all those that say that gays should wait for their turn and stop being cry-babies.

    Gender neutral marriage. NOW.

    by Montreal Progressive on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:56:51 AM PDT

  •  kos, I'm glad a few of our allies around here get (7+ / 0-)

    it. You and MB have been consistently in our corner leading the cheers. Thank you so much. We all, in the glbt community here at DK, take strength from your principled stances. Cheers!

    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 Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:57:41 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I'm real f-ing sure (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor, abrauer, jmrichardson

    that POTUS' plans to extend federal employee benefits is (a) meaningless, and (b) only devised in order to quell "anger" at what has become clear to me is a bunch of trumped up bullshit ascribing a DOJ atty's use of offensive precedents to POTUS' core belief system.

    He did what was in his power because it is the right thing to do and I'm sure this policy change has been planned since forever.

    This diary makes no sense.

    "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

    by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:00:17 AM PDT

    •  And it's purest coinky-dink.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, corvo

      ....that it came out now, with party donors outraged, and not several months ago (or even, say, three or four weeks ago, when the State Department did it.  Riiiiiiight.

      •  The State Department change (0+ / 0-)

        should have been a fucking signal to anyone of common sense that this policy was going to become the law of the land in short form.

        How the fuck are people on blogs are so mean-spirited, passive, and hateful that even such a positive change is greeted with derision?

        Some "allies" indeed.  This kind of crap benefits regressives regardless of the motive.  Keep it real already.

        "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

        by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:23:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because the "positive change" is largely trivial. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, Predictor

          It is largely trivial because it covers so little.  A little hollow bit of symbolism would probably go down a lot better, though, if it weren't playing chaser to that revolting brief.  Which was when inaction (which could arguably be excused by the whole it's-only-been-four-months schtick) veered into vicious, regressive action.  And when the whole condescending "have patience" shit stopped having any validity.

          "Some 'allies' indeed" is right.

          •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            limulus, Boston to Salem

            I'm just speechless at this point.

            It literally makes no sense that POTUS planned this policy change in response to the very recent, and IMO disingenuous at this point, attempt to ascribe precedents cited in a legal brief drafted by someone else entirely to somehow some kind of representation of POTUS' belief system.  Meanwhile being completely dismissive and even mean-spirited about a very positive change in policy.  I mean, that just doesn't even make sense at this point and I feel that continuing to argue against this logic makes me the fool.

            This is a lose-lose argument because it isn't tethered to reality; this is nothing but a really astonishing and unexpected pushback against progress.

            "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

            by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:48:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gmb

              ...one of these days, you'll decide that instead of insultingly casting aspersions on the honesty ("IMO disingenuous at this point") and sanity ("isn't tethered to reality") of people who are saying things you don't understand, maybe you'll try listening with a touch of humility and empathy, and find out why those irrational, lying gay people are in a tizzy and raining on your party.

              Nah, much more fun to be an offensive privileged ass about it.  Have fun.

              •  This is a blogosphere echochamber (0+ / 0-)

                spreading of bullshit issue, a recurring one in fact, not one in which GLBTs have one monolithic view while everyone else has another.

                I'm not calling your question into sanity nor am I calling you dishonest.  I am saying that this argument is absofuckinglutely ridiculous and it makes no sense; the argument is dishonest and crazy.

                LOL at "privileged."

                "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:44:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Keep telling yourself that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gmb

                  My friends are not, generally speaking, bloggers.  Nor regular participants on blogs.  They're really fucking pissed off.

                  As for your "LOL" at being called privileged, you said in a prior comment that you're not gay.  Ergo, you are possessed of straight privilege.  QED.  And it reeks from everything you write, about how ecstatic we're supposed to be over relo benefits, and how we're supposed to take as gospel the fact that Obama's our friend, despite the fact that he has, to this point, done more harm (the DOMA brief) than good (relo benefits!  Yippee!) for gay people.

                  •  I don't give a fuck who (0+ / 0-)

                    has decided that they don't give a shit that for the first time an American president has signalled a clear and unequivocal understanding of the absolute legitimacy and parity of GLBT partnerships to straight partnerships.  Leadership.  Anyone who would respond negatively to that aint progressive and I don't give a damn what they think.

                    POTUS did the right thing here and I hope he continues in his work to bring this country into the 21st century and drive home the idea that a civilized country is accepting and nondiscriminatory towards GLBTs.

                    That there are some GLBTs who don't give a shit because the dancing pet hasn't done a b c on their timeframe?  This is the US of A.  I'd hardly expect President Obama to get the due he deserves from everyone.  Progressives get it.

                    "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

                    by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:09:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Yet another reason why we need a public option... (6+ / 0-)

    How absurd is it that anyone who isn't a married heterosexual is at a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining health insurance?

    Guide to my comments: When in doubt, assume sarcasm.

    by Gray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:01:07 AM PDT

    •  I think... if I'm understanding this correctly, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb

      that because a public option would be a federal benefit, a couple would have to be married in order to receive a family rate. DOMA prevents "marriage-like" couples from receiving certain federal benefits.

      AAC: Support local arts

      by jamesia on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:15:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Democrats for Change (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, DKinUT

    If I start a new organization called Democrats for Change, would it be understood that it is pretty much an anti-Obama group?  Being better than a malevolent idiot isn't enough--using good grammar isn't enough.  Getting out of unjust wars and unjust laws is an urgent matter and is being delayed.  BO is considered liberal because of his racial make-up, not because he's done enough so far.

  •  I am so tired of the hypocrisisy (5+ / 0-)

    we wanted a return to rule of law but now we're pissed off because Obama is honoring that promise?

    Bloody freaken hell how stupid are people?

    I don't like the memo either, but I do understand that the DOJ is obligated to zealously defend it's client the government.

    come on people just think for a second instead of acting like this

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

    by drache on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:02:01 AM PDT

    •  Don't forget (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      to add: a major policy change, a significant extension of benefits to federal employees putting GLBTs and staights at least ostensibly on parity with regards to benefits, well that's just meaningless. /snark

      "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

      by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:10:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, really? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb

      They couldn't zealously defend the government's policy without equating gay marriage with marrying your cousin or an underage girl?

      They couldn't do it without being completely and over the top insulting to millions of Americans who just want to marry the person they love?

      In the meantime, we're not "stupid" to believe that Obama can't advocate for CHANGE to the law even as his DOJ defends it.

      He could right now be talking to members of congress, asking for a bill repealing it so it could be voted on and he could sign it.

      He could be sending a draft down there for consideration.

      He could spend some time lobbying the nation for fairness and equal rights.

      Instead he throws a bone at them, domestic partnership benefits for about 1% or less.  (We've offered them at my work for at least 10 years.)

      This isn't about the DOJ.  It's about Obama's stance on this.

      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

      by delphine on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:20:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they're lawyers (0+ / 0-)

        obviously you don't know any defense lawyers or  probably any in general.

        Our system works because it's impartial and that means that justice is not always fair.

        You want to fallacious make this about Obama? Fine whatever I am tried of trying to reason with people chicken little.

        The DOJ should not be a political arm of the DOJ, we protested and complained when Bush did it. But now that it's Obama you think it's okay? Pure hypocrisy.

        As for Congress, yeah he could and I hope Obama does. But if you haven't noticed the GOP pretty much wrecked America and like it or not the economy takes precedent over just about everything.

        As it is, I will point out the Hate Crimes Bill and the Lily Ledbetter Act as proof that Obama will honor is promises to GLBT just as he has honored his promises to date.

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

        by drache on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:28:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's now safe to say that the "rule of law" talk (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, drache

      that kossacks did for months wrt prosecuting torture was disingenuous in the extreme.  The goal was never "rule of law", it was punishing Bush/Cheney.  Revenge was the motive, not any noble desire to follow "rule of law".

      •  You must be *really* upset... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chiefscribe

        ...that the Clinton administration argued that federal legislation overturning Miranda was unconstitutional, then, huh?

        You must also be livid that Holder won't be prosecuting medical marijuana cases.  

        Or you just have no idea what you're talking about.  

        What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

        by Alec82 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:18:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Overturning miranda was clearly unconstitutional (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drache

          so there's leeway on whether the DOJ must defend the constitutionality of that law.  But DOMA's been upheld six times before.  It's not open-and-shut unconstitutional, so it must be defended (unless you want to politicize the DOJ, which progressives clearly do, which is why all their previous talk of "rule of law" was total bullshit).

          As for whether to prosecuted medical marijuana cases, that's an issue of prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutors decline to persue cases all the time, just as traffic cops let off first time speeders with warning.  But that doesn't mean that the legal authorities in the jurisdiction in question (the DA, state AG, DOJ) would decline to defend the constitutionality of the laws for which a prosecutor declined to persue a case, or decline to defend the constitutionality of speeding laws just because traffic cops can decline to issue tickets for every offense.

          •  Clearly unconstitutional? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tcandew

            I doubt it.  The administration even admitted in its cert petition that there was a nonfrivilous argument for the statute's constitutionality.  They made a judgment call.  And DOMA has never been upheld by an appellate court; it isn't open and shut if there's no binding precedent.  

            My point with medicinal marijuana was to point out that I find your comment about torture to be bizarre, in that context.  Holder hasn't simply decided to let people off with a warning; he's decided to exempt an entire class of criminal cases from prosecution.  That's a policy decision not to enforce federal law because they disagree with it.  The "scarce resources" argument is pretextual.

            What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

            by Alec82 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:35:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  which was something I always suspected (0+ / 0-)

        but I would have been happy to be wrong.

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

        by drache on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:29:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I know!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alec82

      Why can't we have a return of rule of law?!?!?!?!!

      Why do we still have illegal wiretapping?

      Why do we still detain prisoners indefinitely?

      Why does our President still defend torture?

      AAC: Support local arts

      by jamesia on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:17:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama knows what he is doing... (0+ / 0-)

    So far his instincts have been pretty spot on...and since I have no doubt about his sincerity in wanting  to repeal both DADT and DOMA I trust he has a plan to accomplish that.

    Every constituency wants their issue dealt with first...a natural reaction...but that is simply not feasible...either politically or in terms of process..

    Things have to be done when they can with the best chance for success...and frankly I trust Obama's analysis of when that is more than you Kos, or anyone else on here...

    •  Actions speak louder than words (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, YucatanMan, DKinUT, poxonyou, Predictor

      Are you paying attention?

      Obama's DOJ is arguing that gay marriage equates with marrying your cousin or an underage girl.

      That doesn't make you doubt his sincerity on wanting to repeal it?  Why not just repeal it, then?  Executive order.  Or lobby congress to repeal it.  Or have his DOJ argue less disgustingly for it.

      No one's talking about the order of things getting done.  

      We're talking about actual actions that have been taken - not because it's a delay of what you think is sincere

      But because it represents actual policy in opposition to the concept of repealing DOMA and DADT.  

      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

      by delphine on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:15:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Repeal of DADT and DOMA must be done by Congress. (4+ / 0-)

        As I am sure you know we don't live in a dictatorship so Obama doesn't simply get to repeal laws he does not like...

        I have no doubt he will be advocating the repeal of both of these laws when he believes those efforts will have the greatest chance of success (perhaps after the 60th seat is secure for example)...but if I have to choose between the instincts of a man whose has gone  from being a state senator to the leader of the free world in 6 years...and the rantings of the blogosphere...I choose the former.

        Obama does not control the defense the DOJ is required to make of laws. The DOJ is required to defend laws on the books as vigorously as possible. Even laws opposed by the administration it works for

        Everyone here (rightly) decried the lack of respect for the law in the Bush admin, and so now that Obama is respecting the rule of law...even laws he does not like...he is slammed by those very same people...

        •  Also, Smelt is a weak case (0+ / 0-)

          Furthermore, even if it were a strong one, we don't want it being adjudicated by a Supreme Court where Cons are in the majority.

          Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

          by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Glenn Greenwald has a (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, DKinUT

          comment at Salon.com about how, because of bloggers, Obama had to scrounge for votes in Congress to pass the war funding bill.

          You can't pretend the president has no sway when it comes to what congress does.

          You just can't do it.  Because a president DOES have sway.  No one's talking about breaking any laws, or bipassing congress.

          He called them, and asked them to vote for it, and they did, out of loyalty to him.

          He can do that same thing with ANY law, ANY policy.  But he doesn't do it.

          Are you saying that calling members of congress to pass a spending bill is disrespecting the law?

          Are you saying that Obama has to not only leave in place, but FIGHT FOR, every law that bush pushed through, because it's a law?

          A president, a new administration, can't work with his majority in congress, to change the laws?

          I mean really, this isn't about one case.  It's about the way this administration goes about things, and applies its strategy in one policy but not the other.

          There's no defense here.  If he wanted these things repealed, he could be working to do so, having press conferences and appearances and talking to us, just like he works to get other stuff done.

          "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

          by delphine on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:17:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And by the way (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, DKinUT

          Yes, "no doubt" he is going to do what you say, and we should just bide our time and assume it's all going to go the way we want.

          Or we can act like citizens and remain vigilant, and hold our leaders (even the ones we love) accountable.

          "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

          by delphine on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:18:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your statement is untrue: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb

          Historically, factually, this is not true:

          Obama does not control the defense the DOJ is required to make of laws. The DOJ is required to defend laws on the books as vigorously as possible. Even laws opposed by the administration it works for

          Source:  http://www.americablog.com/...

          (paragraph spacing inserted for ease of reading)

          Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law.

          In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."),

          Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."),

          George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and

          Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.")

          all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

    •  That schtick is really getting old (8+ / 0-)

      Obama is not omniscient. He is capable of making a mistake. And his tone-deafness to a major Democratic constituency is right up there.

    •  Not bright (6+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but you trust Obama's analysis too much. I support him on most issues and would vote for him again today, but it's idiocy to suggest he has a master plan on LGBT issues. He has NO plan. None. The signing he's doing today is a rush-job, DADT isn't even on his radar, DOMA's been a disaster. He's truly shrugged this whole thing off.

      However, I will say this: If you think he has a plan, why trust it? Why does he not respect the LGBT community enough to communicate what his plans are before we get angry and offended? Why not give a great speech in honor of Pride month in which he re-promises the things he swore he'd do prior to being elected, and lays out when he'll tackle them and why the longer-term plans must wait?

      At this point, he is losing gay people. And so are the Democrats. Does the Democratic Party really want gay people becoming an unreliable voting bloc? Or sworn enemies? This is a crisis of faith in his intentions and he and people like you are swatting at flies over it. He needs to take action, but to not even do any legit PR to smooth things over is only making things worse.

  •  Just think if old Reggee White was still around (0+ / 0-)

    regurgitating all his stooopid vile bile. Miss yha Regeee ! Cant we also be grateful that Aneeeta Bryants has put a cork in it and has possibly seeen the light ?

    If I just had one day when I wasnt all confused

    by FuzzyDice on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:04:01 AM PDT

  •  Pet peeve (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind

    Why does everyone insist on exaggerating how long Obama's been president?  In a few days he will have been president for 5 months, but for the last few weeks people have been claiming we're 6 months in.  At this rate we'll be evaluating his first year by the end of October  

    They also serve who only stand and wait. -- John Milton

    by seanwright on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:04:22 AM PDT

  •  Kos is right (6+ / 0-)

    But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act

    People were patient. More than patient. Then, his people had the time to do that. Patience gone.

  •  Somethings are better left undone... (0+ / 0-)

    Reminds me of President Carter breaking a federal wage freeze with an across the board 1% increase (iirc...could have been 1.5% or 2%).

    Morale, general conversations and feedback would have all been much better had the freeze persisted and no expectations crept in. Basically, given taxes and completely out of control, through the roof inflation the annual pay review was still another net reduction in earnings.

    HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in - national single-payer NOW.

    by kck on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:07:57 AM PDT

  •  Wait a minute! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, tnichlsn, gmb, corvo, Muzikal203

    Reacting to a rising tide of anger from gay and lesbian supporters

    Obama still HAS GBLT supporters?! Who knew. Not in my circles, that's for sure.

    It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

    by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:08:00 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85

    That said, after reading the diaries, I think you should change the name of the site to Gayly Kos.

  •  Obama is fundamentally a bigot against gays (2+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Predictor
    Hidden by:
    alkatt, GN1927

    He does not recognize the inherent lawlessness of our government's current treatment of those who are trying to lead full lives as human beings by expressing their love and sexuality openly but within the loving couple paradigm that has developed in Western civilization.

    The evidence suggests that Obama thinks gays can turn on and off their sexual desires and needs for companionship.  Just like Obama could move from white to black in his childhood and youth, depending on the opportunities.

    But at some point Obama determined that he really was African American in identity and culture and family.  And that is a journey gays and homosexuals and others have made as well.   A lot of people don't make the journey completly because like light colored African Americans in the past they can pass for straight.  And yet we know that is not a healthy process.

    Transparency and opwnness in human relations are what the law should encourage.  The Republicans are on the ropes spinning themselves into further irrelevancy.  It would be funny if they in fact regain their mojo by being the party that recognizes the fundamental unfairness of treating gays and lesbians like third class citizens.  Ironically it is voices on the right that are being more helpful to this issue right now.

     

    •  Never will happen (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans are nowhere on this issue.  Keep pushing Obama.

      How about some real change?

      by noofsh on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:20:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Strong Comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      But hide rate-able?  I'm not sure.

      "Gay marriage is like Israel. Everyone wants it to exist, but nobody wants to live there."

      by bink on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:35:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is strong and is somewhat (0+ / 0-)

        supported by the total ukewarm support Obama has gotten in Illinois on this/these issues.  And yes of course it is fantastic that Obama is President and his foreign policy and economic policy are a great 180 from republican policies.  But we are talking human rights here in the United States.  President Obama is a constitutional lawyer.  He wraps himself in MLK.  And yet when it comes to rights for a large group of citizens - probably larger than the population of African Americans in te US - crickets.

      •  Strong? (0+ / 0-)

        That comment with its idiot theory that biracial blacks, particularly those too dark to pass like President Obama, "choose" their race and thus consider homosexuality a choice is merely "strong" to you?

        How about ignorant, regressive and downright stupid, to be generous.

        I gave it a very well-deserved TROLLRATE.

        "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

        by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:39:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm Not Saying It Can't Offend (0+ / 0-)

          But the presence of this comment is not "so disruptive" that the community is better off with the comment hidden.

          "Gay marriage is like Israel. Everyone wants it to exist, but nobody wants to live there."

          by bink on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:40:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not just about offending (0+ / 0-)

            that was just ignorant and expressing the racism of its author.  WTF does President Obama's biracial identity have to do with just a naked, outright lie about homosexuality as a choice.  

            But I guess I'm not too too upset that it's unhidden, because anyone scratching their head at the vehemence and at times hatefulness of the response to POTUS extending benefits to GLBTs can look at this comment and a couple of others and divine a reason.

            "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

            by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:44:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Eh shut up! (0+ / 0-)

      with your dime store "analysis" which is nothing more than a race-based hateful attack.  You have no fucking idea what you're talking about and your thesis: that POTUS' mixed-race black ancestry somehow means that he sees homosexuality as a choice is one of the stupidest pieces of shit I've read here which is striking given the competition.  What a ridiculous attack on biracial black people and you really need to be ashamed.

      Ugh, what rank hatefulness and ignorance hidden in the guise of "activism."  A recurring theme in these parts.

      "My favorite is Greta Van Susteren"--Kirsten Gillibrand, FoxNews Progressive

      by GN1927 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:37:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lolwut? (0+ / 0-)

      "The evidence suggests that Obama thinks gays can turn on and off their sexual desires and needs for companionship.  Just like Obama could move from white to black in his childhood and youth, depending on the opportunities."

      What evidence, sparky? Provide it.

      I'm not one of those "THE ONE IS INFALLIBLE AAIIIIYEEE" folks. In fact, Obama's already done stuff that I heavily disagree with. I voted for him knowing that he would do so, because politicians aren't perfect and not all of my issues are everyone else's issues.

      But you can't make a statement like the one I quoted and provide no direct evidence, because that's pretty heavy shit.

      "so preparing for pandemic swine flu was an example of pork-barrel politics. you can't make this shit up." http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20479

      by DruidQueen on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:46:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Democrats had a ounce of class (7+ / 0-)

    they'd heed this advice:

    The DNC needs to reschedule next week's gay fundraiser until after the administration gets its act together on its plan for gay rights.

    Actually good sense would dictate it too.

    Throw an ice cream social for the Saddleback Church instead.

    It only took five months of GOP being out of power for the Right Wing to start shooting up the country. Terrorists!

    by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

  •  Good journal KOS (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn, gmb, DKinUT

    The Dems need to get their act together on this issue.  I am glad that they see it has consequences.  Sometimes money really is the only thing that talks.

    How about some real change?

    by noofsh on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:15:33 AM PDT

  •  Stop avoiding other people's past "mistakes" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Predictor

    This is just craven and most importantly STUPID.

    So Obama is trying to avoid Clinton's "mistake" in taking on the ban against gays in the military and suffering politically for it.  

    I remember another president doing everything possible to avoid the "mistakes" of his predecessor.  Bush.  43 was dead set on avoiding the mistakes of his father No. 41.  What was H.W. Bush's "mistake?"  Stopping the "war" in Iraq too soon.  Incidentally, the last true War, as in Congress actually declaring war, was WWII.  In 1991, No. 41 used military force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.  The conflict lasted only three days while the buildup was more like three or more months.  No. 41's popularity was stratospheric.  His military commanders, well regarded, told him to avoid marching to Baghdad and removing Hussein from power because we would then own a tinderbox.  The advice was good, and No. 41 declared victory and got out.  So what was the mistake.  Well, at the time the economy sucked.  I know, I graduated from college and had a hard time finding good work.  So America remembered that the economy sucked and punished No. 41 for it and elected Clinton.

    So 41's mistake, as 43 read it, was not having an ongoing military operation to recast you as a "war president."  So what did this brilliant logic get us?  A purposeful military conflict whose primary purpose was to get the president reelected.  I hope the 4000+ dead feel their lives were worth the "cause."  

    Going back to LGBT issues, Clinton tried to allow gays to serve openly in the military and ran into the same well regarded military leaders, I.E. Colin Powell.  They refused to give in, and Clinton backed down even though he had the power to tell them to go along or get out.  So Obama seems to think that Clinton's "mistake" was trying to tackle the issue of serving openly in the military so early in his presidency, or at all.  Clinton's mistake, in my opinion, was backing down.  Very few changes to our laws and the rights we enjoy came by people sitting down at a table and working things out.  They came by appointing or electing new politicians or judges that thought differently.  

    Both presidents are making their own short term, tactical personal interests in getting reelected higher than the interests of the people.  Bush thought that the most important thing was to get reelected and fashioned his first term just to get to a second.  Now I can understand this mentality if you feel you are actually doing some good for the country.  I am sure Bush convinced himself of this, but that was because he shut out reality and everyone around him set about "making a new reality."  Bush's agenda was to get more money for his rich friends and his advisors agenda was to get more power for the Republicans.  That's not much of an agenda.  Bush was completely oblivious to the facts and that cost America.

    Obama seems to be oblivious to the facts.  There will always be plenty of people that are against serving openly gay in the military and equal rights for gay couples, just like there will always be people willing to kill innocents because they are black or gay, or Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever.  But accommodating them is a worthless endeavor.  Gays have served openly in many countries military without incident.  Heck, gays served openly in ancient Greek and Roman armies.  Those armies certainly did not lack for whoop ass.  

    The only thing that I can think that Obama might be trying to do is some legal jujitsu whereby he puts out some totally outlandish legal reasoning hoping it gets tossed out as being outlandish.  The result might be the same, but I cannot see his PR improving any.  But I give that a 0.000001% chance of working if it was the plan.  

    Look at the facts now, and do what is right, not politically expedient.  Ugh.  The only way for intolerant Americans to realize their own marriages will not collapse because a gay couple got married next door, is to wake up in their own bed, next to their own wife five years later, and realize they were childish in their fears of calamitous results from gay marriage.  Several states have done it and those states did not degenerate to chaos.  

  •  Obama Administration and Campaign Promises (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, corvo, Predictor, Muzikal203

    To put it bluntly, this Administration stinks. It is only marginally better than Bush or what McCain would have been. On every important and crucial question ranging from constitutional rights, civil liberties, transparency, gay rights, the wars, etc., etc., etc., they are almost indistinguishable from the previous Administration except in terms of rhetoric.

    •  As He Said Yesterday (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb

      His administration isn't about "hope" or "change" after all.  It's about "tradition."

      "Gay marriage is like Israel. Everyone wants it to exist, but nobody wants to live there."

      by bink on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:34:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not surprised--Obama's campaign wasn't promising (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn, gmb, corvo, Predictor

    for LGBT folk to begin with. He made his discomfort with same-sex marriage clear from the start, and I've long suspected that any relationiship he has had with the LGBT community is a marriage of convenience for him. Still, I voted for him over Hillary Clinton because in other respects I thought he would be a better president.

    If we want real change from the White House, we will have to keep on the pressure until his failure to push for full LGBT rights becomes a clear political liability.

    •  Seconded! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, Predictor

      I supported Obama over Hillary Clinton because I was frankly scared shitless by her foreign policy attitudes -- and sheer competece and lack of character (the 180-degree turn on I/E, the bullet-dodging at Sarajevo Airport, etc.).  So although Obama certainly talked even less like a progressive on domestic issues, I wasn't sure there would be any real difference between the two.

      Well, as it turns out, Obama isn't disappointing me on domestic matters . . . and Hillary Clinton is in charge of foreign policy.  Worst of both worlds.

  •  Not "Obama's DOJ" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    popewiz

    Rule of thumb: The president doesn't have the authority to set the agenda for the DOJ. Question: Is AG Holder in charge of his DOJ or are the Bush moles in charge?

    DOJ used to be more separate from the WH - BB [Before Bush]. Mixing DOJ and presidency is not good for democracy. Like too much mixing of military with presidency and no curb by Congress. When should the WH weigh in? When the Executive is party to a court case, like when the U.S. Solicitor is a party. When not? When the DOJ investigates and prosecutes, say drug dealers, banksters,  voter fraudsters, other violators of federal law.

    Law is security; lawlessness invites terror. -Joe Margulies

    by mrobinson on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:19:37 AM PDT

  •  Obam Adminstration and Campaign Promises-cont. pt (0+ / 0-)

    I'd like to suggest a reason for all this right wing crap coming out of this Administration. The bureaucracy. That is, the Administration has done nothing, zip, nada, to get rid of, move out all the right wing fundamentalist Christians who were put in place during the previous Adminiistration. the DOJ, HHS, HS, etc., are all still staffed by the same crazies from Liberty University that were there prior to the election. Between Obama being something resembling a "moderate" Republican(an oxymoron) and the bureaucracy what you have is a softer continuation of the previous Administration.

  •  BREAKING (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, YucatanMan, chiefscribe

    White House announces that effective immediately same-sex couples will be allowed to share the same sandwich in the White House cafeteria.

    More details to follow

    Love should be everything or not at all

    by kansasr on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

  •  I call bullshit (10+ / 0-)

    It is distressing to see kos, of all people, repeating this destructive and factually challenged meme, that the DoJ's brief of DOMA is somehow all Obama's fault.

    The DoJ is required by law to defend any federal law from constitutional challenge, and the White House is barred by law from directing how it is done. To say this brief was written by Obama's administration is just plain a lie.

    It is also considered extremely inappropriate for the President to comment on any lawsuit, since that is just another way for the President to attempt to influence what he is barred by law from influencing.

    I was appalled to see Barney Frank piling on this lie as well. He's a friggin Congressman, he should know better. What good does it do to blame your own President for something he can't do?

  •  Here's a radical idea (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    limulus, Boston to Salem, GN1927

    I'm going to wait until I hear from the President this afternoon before I get outraged about what he has or hasn't said or done yet.

    See you later today!

    You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

    by abrauer on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:28:34 AM PDT

  •  of for fuck's sake (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    I would comment at length about this but I have to get to work.  Some of us in this country have to work for a living at a job that isn't just criticizing how people who have to work for a living do their job.

    •  As this is a website where political discussions (0+ / 0-)

      take place, you are going to find that people tend to critique political actions, campaigns, behavior and decisions.

      Your lengthy and repetitive dismissal of gay issues as being anything of importance is evident to anyone who reviews your comments.

      Political discussion is generally not possible with out going into whether something was right or wrong and why.  That's the nature of political discussion.

      If you don't like political discussion, or are just looking for a cheerleading group, maybe this isn't the best place to spend your working hours.  I'm just trying to be helpful, as your comments seem to show you are generally displeased.

  •  Presidency too powerful (0+ / 0-)

    Once we had balance between 3 branches of government and the DOJ was more separate, setting its own agenda. Now, people think Obama sets the agenda for  DOJ and approves a brief. Now, DOJ seems to be working seamlessly with its recent past, its Bush past.

    Since Obama doesn't express outrage at a policy, past or present screw-up, people in government go their own way. It looks like lack of leadership. Again, Howard Dean got it right, just right.

    We need Obama moral leadership. We need him to stop dividing the baby in half and get angry at this stupid wrong offensive brief. He shouldn't try to run the DOJ that must set its own agenda, but he can take a public shot at this brief and tell everyone why its wrong.

    Obama's job is to go on TV and tell the truth. We need bold truth-telling.

    Law is security; lawlessness invites terror. -Joe Margulies

    by mrobinson on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:31:20 AM PDT

  •  Omission, not commission (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    I think it's not entirely correct to ascribe to Obama the inflammatory brief.  In the absence of specific direction from above, the DoJ lawyers have to defend the law; given that they have to defend the law they are typically going to use any and all arguments that might possibly work to their advantage and who gives a crap how it makes their client look—that's how lawyers typically operate.  

    So, what this likely means is that the top levels of the Obama administration are asleep at the switch on gay rights, government secrecy, etc.  Right now the administration's attention is focused on the economy and healthcare; however, given the number of people that Obama has working for him, it seems silly to let the lower-levels of the DoJ, which Gonzo et al. illegally filled with litmus-test right wingnuts, run around unsupervised.  It's time to turn the heat up on Obama and especially Attorney General Holder who has no excuse for letting things like this happen!

    --- Obama: combines the intellect of Bill Clinton and the decency of Jimmy Carter—it's good to have a thoughtful non-cynic in the White House!

    by KingBolete on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:33:23 AM PDT

    •  Unsupervised is how I see it (3+ / 0-)

      I agree. We need leadership from Holder and we need Obama to give a 5 minute weekly talk of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and how Bush /Cheney broke the executive.

      .. it seems silly to let the lower-levels of the DoJ, which Gonzo et al. illegally filled with litmus-test right wingnuts, run around unsupervised.  It's time to turn the heat up on Obama and especially Attorney General Holder who has no excuse for letting things like this happen!

      Law is security; lawlessness invites terror. -Joe Margulies

      by mrobinson on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:40:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Holder needs to fill more DoJ slots (0+ / 0-)

        DoJ was really, really, REALLY f-ed over by Gonzales and Ashcroft and Mukasey.  The problem is that the Republicans are blocking a lot of new appointments, especially for DoJ.

        Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

        by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:31:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that there are too many moles (0+ / 0-)

          but something of this nature should not have been answered without some review of the brief, internal to the justice department. Allowing a Mormon Bush holdover to write the brief has proven a serious error.

    •  An omission required by law (0+ / 0-)

      One additional fact: the lack of supervision by the White House is required by law. The White House is barred by law from interfering in the DoJ defending constitutional challenges to federal laws.

      Here's what Larry Tribe has to say on the subject (h/t Phoenix Woman). It's very useful reading for background on this subject.

      •  Um, it says nothing of the kind (0+ / 0-)

        In fact, it says exactly the opposite:

        But DOMA is in a gray area where there are experts like me, who think it’s unconstitutional, and you can find experts who hold the opposite view, and it’s certainly not a slam-dunk.

        There are ways for the president to get rid of DOMA. He can advocate for its repeal, he can eventually urge the solicitor general to join in a more surgical attack, but he certainly isn’t obliged to go along with every plaintiff who brings a lawsuit.

        (emphasis added to aid in reading comprehension)

        Tribe himself says the president can influence the DOJ's process. (The Solicitor General works for the DOJ.)

        Oops. You fail.

        •  To prevent you from misleading the unwary (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks for adding emphasis to aid in misinterpreting what Tribe says, but let's cut to the chase:

          The important point here is that the solicitor general traditionally seeks to dismiss lawsuits against federal laws whenever there is a plausible basis to do it. A lot of the outcry about the administration’s position doesn’t take that institutional reality into account.

      •  you are incorrect, regardless of Mr Tribe's (0+ / 0-)

        comments. Former presidents have all declined to defend the constitutionality of various federal laws.

        Source:  http://www.americablog.com/...
        (paragraph spacing inserted for ease of reading)

        Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law.

        In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."),

        Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."),

        George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and

        Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.")

        all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

  •  i guess i'm the enemy now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    i was for you.  i am pretty sure.  but now i guess you decided that i'm against you.  

    well, alright.  

    weird.

    nothing changes for me in any way at all now that I'm not on your side.

    huh.

    guess it doesn't really matter then.  

    i guess there's no problem here.

    good luck on that getting the right to divorce there.

    best to ya.

    oh, sorry, forgot that you made me your enemy

    um

    may the lord punish you for your abominationalisticy ways

    there, happy?

  •  Still no mention in the MSM of the influence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    of orange screaming on the political process.

    Maybe they conspire.

    "If the thorn of the rose is the thorn in your side Then you're better off dead if you haven't yet died."

    by whitewash on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:42:27 AM PDT

  •  I never thought I would call out Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn

    for lack of leadership. He needs to watch some Al Gore videos. Never thought I'd think that.

    Law is security; lawlessness invites terror. -Joe Margulies

    by mrobinson on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:43:04 AM PDT

    •  Here's what Kos isn't telling you (5+ / 0-)
      1. This has been in the works for weeks now -- ever since John Berry's selection to head OPM.  It's not a "reaction" to the Aravosis-led hoo-ha over DOMA.  (Aravosis specializes in hoo-ha.)
      1. John Berry is openly gay.  OPM is the Office of Personnel Management -- the Federal government's human-resources office.  

      The Feds employ millions of folks nationwide, and are usually trendsetters for private industry; during the Bush years, they fell behind, but are now poised to play catch-up.  The provision announced today is the start to that.  It can't go much further right now because DOMA is still the law of the land -- and DOMA is best undone by Congress.  

      Why not the courts? Because:

      1. the Smelt case that Aravosis is taking to his bosom is so weak that in striking it down, John Roberts and the current USSC would STRENGTHEN DOMA, not end it, and:
      1. even if it were a strong case, we still have better odds with the current Congress than with John Roberts.

      Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

      by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:57:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fed = Trendsetters? That's rich (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, TheGeneral, RainyDay

        Because even conservative firms have been providing REAL DP benefits (that include health care) for YEARS.

        Of course, thanks to DOMA and the Fed, those benefits are treated as taxable income, so they aren't all they are cracked up to be.  But they are more than "relocation expenses".

        The Fed CAN'T treat gay folks fairly unless DOMA is repealed.  And Congress and the White House are bowing politely to each other with "You first," "no, YOU first" on both DOMA and DADT.

        THere is no momentum on this for the same reason that the anti-Prop8 ads here in CA refused to show actual gay families.  Because the DNC focus groups have made gays SO TOXIC that no one wants to be seen with us--even those on our own side.

        Even if the electorate as a whole is getting more friendly, the national Dems AND the White House are afraid of giving us even a smidgeon of fairness.

        Because "teh gay" are "teh ick".

        I thought the REpubs and their 20% rabid religious righters lost the election.  But we apparently still live in fear of them.

      •  The federal government employs about two million (0+ / 0-)

        people in the civilian sector. That's out of about a hundred and forty million people who are employed in the U.S., according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is not a catch-up of any kind, and it will have minimal effect even on the tiny fraction of the workforce that can take advantage of it.

        As to the rest of your bullshit, you have no evidence to support the contention that this has been in the works for weeks or months, or that it is intended to be (or is) anything more than a pathetic sop to a constituency that the administration thought it could safely ignore until we spoke up to let them know how wrong they were.

  •  To say that promises have not been kept (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, GN1927, RussTC3, My Stupid Opinion
    Hidden by:
    newdem1960

    just because the gays haven't gotten everything they want, and what Obama promised, in the first 6 mos, is absolutely laughable.

    This outrage has reached hysterical levels.  And by "hysterical," I mean laughable.

    •  You sound like a troll (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tnichlsn, gmb

      or at least someone so grossly insensitive you probably come here for laughs.

      •  Learn the facts b4 you whip out the troll brand (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927, My Stupid Opinion

        Fact One -- the case Aravosis touts is NOT the hill you want to die on:

        http://www.advocate.com/...

        Fact Two -- Aravosis likes whipping people into emotion-packed, thought-free rage frenzies against various people who aren't always deserving of such treatment.

        Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

        by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:01:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the fact that matters to me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, tnichlsn, gmb

          is he calls himself a fierce advocate for GLBT rights, then his DOJ staff writes that piece of cr@p - they had plenty of time to get that done -- and he doesn't withdraw it in embarrassment, denounce it, tell Holder to fire the people who wrote it........

          I'm not being whipped into any kind of frenzy by some person I've never heard of, who apparently wrote something I've never read. I'm expressing my deep disappointment with a candidate for whom I worked, who promised change and who is still : discriminating against my GLBT brothers & sisters, trying to withhold the White House visitor logs, etc. If you're going to campaign on change, don't be surprised when people get frustrated that you don't actually change anything.

          "No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." --MLK

          by anotherdemocrat on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:24:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  His DoJ staff is still mostly Bush holdovers (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anotherdemocrat

            Gonzales, Ashcroft and Mukasey packed DoJ with Regent and Federalist Society hacks -- and then didn't replace them with good people (or any people) when they started leaving for more lucrative pastures.  

            Even worse:  Republicans are holding up the new admin's appointments, especially for DoJ.

            So while Holder has screwed up a few things, he's been put in a sucky situation.

            Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

            by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:35:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  both Holder & Obama have had plenty of time (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, TheGeneral

              to say "hey, that was an awful thing my employees wrote - they've been fired/demoted/reprimanded, that brief has been withdrawn & some competent people have been given the job of writing a new one"

              Neither one has.

              "No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." --MLK

              by anotherdemocrat on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:45:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  bite me! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, gmb

      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 Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:32:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnichlsn, gmb, cloudbustingkid

    is the Fierce Advocate speaking?

  •  Someone help me? (0+ / 0-)

    Can someone explain the brief, it's author and the process by which this thing became public and the venue in which it is intended?

    Preferably via a link to a pre-existing diary or public access article.

    Thanks...

    (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

    by Enterik on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:05:41 AM PDT