Obama needs to give a major speech on gay rights

[ruggerson]

Not a speech where he throws in one toss-off applause line about gay people.

Not a correspondent's dinner where he jokes about Iowa's historic decision on equal marriage rights.

No, this man needs to multitask and give a very serious, deliberate speech about America and the history of its treatment of its gay citizenry.

He needs to take ONE afternoon and fly to a symbolically appropriate spot and deliver a stemwinder.

It can be at a Baptist church in the deep South.

Or he could deliver it in the cruel winds of Wyoming at the spot where Matthew Shephard lost his life.

A gay writer needs to pen most of it, or at least edit it beforehand.

Our president needs to give this speech and he needs to lay out the case for full equality and demand that DOMA and DADT be immediately repealed and that ENDA become the law of the land.

He has to use the bully pulpit, and use it powerfully and forcefully, just like he promised us he would.

Sadly, I don't now believe that this man has it in him to do this.

But, I would like to hold onto the last shred of hope that he does and that he would.

[lapfog_1]

1. Actually, no, he doesn't

What he needs to do now is to introduce new legislation (or have a loyal democrat in Congress do so, if there is one left) that repeals DADT and a second one that eliminates DOMA.

And he needs to issue an executive order to modify DADT right now, and halt the separation of those people who have been forced to leave in the last month.

And THEN he needs to give a speech about Prop H8 and how marriage is marriage, one person to another person. And needs to be recognized in every state.

He might lose every vote, but he needs to do it and do it now.

[ruggerson]

2. I'm down with that

[vaberella]

4. I want the speech and I want legislation---I HATE CONGRESS!

They don't give a fuck and in effect they're fucking Obama over. At least with this he can make some motions and shake the waters. I don't know if O is waiting for after Health care because right now...I don't even know if we'll get the public option. Dems are already saying they're voting against it if there's a public option.

But at least if he puts it out there we can see if something can get going. I do think that if he did focus on passing bills for gay rights there is no way health care would make it---because of the environment within Congress about gay rights (which is less than amicable in my eyes---disgusting bastards) and they would like to smack O in the face ---Either way the way Congress is...ugh.

As for Prop 8. He has spoken against Prop 8 in the past and wrote letters to the congressmen and senators there. That was out of his hands.

Even his letter to them was published on DU so Prop 8 he's done. But I do want a national speech on this.

[lapfog_1]

9. I agree about Congress.

But it goes better if a Congress critter introduces the legislation, with a horde of co-sponsors.

But with these two issues, given the spineless nature of our congress critters, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[vaberella]

15. Exactly...and I think this is also something that affects O and getting progressive changes done.

nt

[hulklogan]

27. There is already a bill in the House to repeal DADT, but our "friends" in leadership are stalling.

Get it out of committee, Madam Speaker!

[geek tragedy]

3. No more speeches. He needs to lead and act.

He needs to work to change evil policies instead of having his lawyers prop them up.

[ruggerson]

6. the way you start to change evil policies is by giving speeches

he has yet to address any of this since he assumed office.

I agree with you that any bully pulpit exhortations must be combined with sending legislation up to the hill.

Yesterday.

[LeftyMom]

5. He can stick his speeches. Major policy initiative. Nothing less.

[ruggerson]

7. The reason why a speech is important is because the media would swoon over it

and it would make the job of pushing the major pieces of legislation through congress that much easier.

He has to mobilize the media behind this - and one of the ways to start that process is a major public address.

[LeftyMom]

8. He's not trying to move any legislation on GLBT issues.

He doesn't get to take credit for movement on equality until he stops trying to move backward. And we all know that presidential speeches are about taking credit and scoring political points.

[bluedawg12]

10. They gave a nice speech Wed. and then filed their brief Thursday!

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/doj-whats-past-is-prologue-indeed/legal-issues/2009/06/12/3409

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder, once heralded by the gay community as someone who would work to achieve President Obama's promise to repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, on Wednesday stood in front of his Department of Justice's LGBT employees and, as reported in an article just released by The Washington Blade, spoke to the Obama Administration's promise of equality for all:

DOJ Pride, the gay affinity group for Justice Department employees, coordinated the celebration, which was dubbed, "What's Past is Prologue: Honoring Our Past, Forging Our Future."

The employees greeted Holder with a standing ovation before he gave his speech.

Holder said the title of the event "reminds us that yesterday's sacrifices pave the way for today's opportunities."

"Forty years ago this June, members of the gay community said 'enough,' he said. "What happened in Greenwich Village, New York, gave rise to a national movement dedicated to achieving equal justice for members of the community. Our presence here today is a testament to that movement and to the change it achieved."

He noted that DOJ Pride was founded 15 years ago, yet challenges remain in achieving equality.

"Let's be honest, too many of the same obstacles that existed then remain for us to overcome," he said. "But neither the frustrations of the past, nor the challenges of the future should deter us from our goal - our responsibility - to continue our efforts to ensure the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans."

That was Wednesday.


Thursday, Holder's Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a gay marriage case the U.S. Court of Appeals is hearing. In "Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children," John Aravosis of AmericaBlog writes,

Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

So, Attorney General Holder, in a celebration called, "What's Past is Prologue: Honoring Our Past, Forging Our Future," on one day claims to fight for us, the next day takes away all our arguments. I don't think we can afford to have him or Obama leading the charge.

[kevinbgoode]

11. I am not holding my breath

And I'm not sure, at this point, whether the rhetoric would mean anything to me. There is simply no excuse for the inaction by this Administration, and I'm sick and tired of being told my birthright to FULL citizenship in MY country has to always take a back seat until someone else's specially selected bigot "religious" beliefs are placated. Bullshit.

I'm sick and tired of being told that someone else's life is more important than my own, and that I just have to wait, and maybe someday there won't be anything else for the Democrats to think about and they'll pay some damn attention to the promises made to me by my forefathers and the Constitution of this country.

And I'm sick and tired of being told that there are always other issues more important than the health insurance of MY community's spouses, or the right to non-discrimination in employment for my community members, or the right to protect the freedom of other citizens of my country without having to give up a large chunk of my own freedom, or the right to determine, as a free, responsible adult, who visits me in a hospital or who gets my property, or the right to walk down a goddamn street in this country and hold the hand of the one I love.

President "Separate but Equal" Obama should be embarassed by the string of events coming from this Administration. I don't need White House proclamations celebrating my PRIDE month, followed by demonizing my community in legal briefs to defend an abhorrent law which is an insult to every principle this country used to stand for. . .and I don't need another speech that isn't accompanied by ACTION to protect and secure the lives of my community as FULL citizens of our own country.

I do blame myself, and the rest of the people in this country, for the ineffectiveness of our government and its inability to understand and represent the interests of the people in this country. After all, less than half of the adult population is married, but our legislatures are full of married people who have spent decades writing special rights laws for people like themselves, ignoring the rest of us. We've allowed our candidates to be subjected to religious scrutiny as a qualification for holding public office, despite the Constitution - and we think that marital/family status is some damn indication of effectiveness for representing the interests of all the people.

I should not have to wait - or to beg - for heterosupremacists to "give" me the rights I am entitled to by the founding documents of this nation. Those are my goddamn birthright, and they should never be compromised to placate some Catholic doctrine, some Baptist bigotry, or some Mormon magic underpants fantasy. If there is anyone's rights which should be debated in this country, it should be theirs - after all, as adults who made the decision to embrace these "beliefs," they should be held to personal responsibility for leading them in THEIR lives -not dictating them to mine.

My government will allow common street thugs and people with criminal records serve this country. They allow evangelical nutcases who publicly state that they are not defending the Constitution, but their "GOD"..serve this country. They let racists, anti-Semites, and Muslim haters serve this country, even while they wage policy wars against other citizens whose rights they are supposed to protect.

Evangelical heterosupremacists never campaign to restrict the marriage rights of pedophiles, child abusers, spousal abusers or murderers. Obviously, in their eyes, people who have violated the rights of other citizens are still entitled to FULL recognition of their lives and relationships, while my community continues to be subjected by the most hate-driven, insulting propaganda campaign.

[ThomCat]

13. Excellent Speech!

:applause:

:hug:

Yes, I agree 100%.

I haven't heard the term Heterosupremacists before, but oh, how appropriate that is. :(

[ThomCat]

12. Anything that starts him moving forward would be acceptable

as long as it's the first step, and he keeps moving forward, helping us instead of working against us.

I'm not too picky about where or when or how he starts this turn-around, so long as it happens.

[Gold]

14. The Government shouldn't be in the marriage regulating business.

I think those fighting to make gay marriage legal should not be fighting that fight. They are fighting to give rights to a certain segment of the population when they could be fighting to give rights to a larger segment. ie. their argument is to narrow in scope.

The US government should not be in the marriage regulating business. It should be none of the US governments business who is married to whom as long as all the participants are consenting adults.

There should not be special rights to spouses of any sort. Taxes should be filed individually with or without dependants and no special tax compensation given to those who are married.

It should be legal for a man to have 4 wives.
It should be legal for a block marriage (2 men and 2 women).
It should be legal for line marriages. As spouses die new ones are married in so the marriage could last for centuries.

People should not be fighting to make gay marriage legal. They should be fighting to insure that it isn't illegal. Some people think your not allowed to do anything unless someone made it legal to do so. I say we are permitted to do anything unless there is a law that says we can't.

There should be no laws pertaining to marriage at all. Let future marriage be the equivalent to a business contract. Such contracts can be for life or a set number of years. Such contracts could include all shorts of partnerships. None of which would be the US governments business.

Christians can still get married in a church. Such marriages would not be officially recognized by the US government because the US government would no longer be in the business of regulating marriages.

This is how you get equality for everyone.

[vaberella]

16. What are you talking about? They're the only sect that doesn't have the right of marriage.

You make no sense from the start of your statement. Oy.

[Gold]

17. What about polygamist?

What about 2 men marrying 2 women?
What about having 14 people in a single marriage, like for example in a line marriage?

You need to re-read what I wrote.

[vaberella]

21. You're using this RW talking point as a defense? Dear God. n/t

[anigbrowl]

18. This is one of the most constructive threads I've seen on this subject

going back to last year, even before the election. the only thing I'd add is a question - of course now would be the most desirable time, but when's an acceptable time? And how much time should it take?

Let me clarify that last question. A speech or policy initiative needs time - time to write, to deliver, to give pres conferences about, to go on the road and sell,and so on. As we've seen with other policies and other administrations in the past, if you don't plan that right, it doesn't work out. I've often felt that healthcare failed in the early 90s because the Clinton administration didn't budget the time and political capital to properly sell it.

Now, as we know Obama is already dealing with (in very rough chronological order) the economy, Iraq/Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine/Middle East, and Healthcare. That's approximately one BIG issue every month. Looking at it politically rather than in principle, one approach might be 'this affects ~10% of the electorate, and the tide seems to have shifted in favor of gays in the military...looking at the Congressional calendar, maybe August would work...then we can point to Iowa and observe that it's been about 6 months and the sky hasn't fallen yet.'

I'm not saying the issue should just wait and gather dust, but that the administration is likely to want to move on this when the political winds are most favorable, eg when unemployment has stabilized a bit or the price of gas is falling nearer the end of the summer.

[Michigander4Dean]

19. HE'S BEEN TALKING - AND TALKING AND TALKING AND TALKING

But HE WON'T FUCKING ACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WILL WE EVER LEARN?????????????????????????????????????

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SeattleGirl]

23. You really hate him, don't you?

I honestly don't understand why you are hanging around a site called Democratic Underground.

[Michigander4Dean]

24. I don't hate people

I hate (in)actions.

[SeattleGirl]

25. Could have fooled me

[ruggerson]

26. actually he hasn't

he hasn't said anything about any of these issues since he became President. It's pretty appalling.

[Morning Dew]

20. Let's hope that's a "T" inclusive ENDA. nm

[Jakes Progress]

22. I agree that action is called for, but

I won't mind if that starts with a speech. It's what he's good at. It will go a long way toward clarifying things.

Many of the cheerleaders have used the defense that Obama didn't know about this, that he can't know everything that goes on, that he has been very, very busy. The right kind of speech should send the word to any homophobe underlings that they need to watch what they do in his name. It would also stem, but not stop, the right wingnuts from using the language from the brief as an excuse - as in "We agree with President Obama that Gays don't deserve the same rights as 'real' people."

That speech should be front and center in the news by Monday. Lacking that, he is damning himself with silence.