Be very honest

[ruggerson]

If you were gay, would you be disappointed that DADT has now been pushed back, ENDA, as tame as it is, hasn't even happened yet and DOMA will almost certainly not be repealed, even if Obama wins another term AND we keep both branches of Congress?

As recently as three months ago the administration was supposedly working on a plan with the congressional leadership to bundle the repeal of DADT into the Defense authorization bill.

Now, that's been apparently scrapped.

Today, Barney Frank weighs in and says he is "disappointed" with the Administration on DADT.

60-70% of the country wants DADT repealed.

80% of the country thinks LGBT citizens should not be discriminated against in employment (ENDA).

Yet... nothing.

We might lose one of the houses of Congress in fall, which means none of these things will get done in Obama's first term.

Wouldn't you feel like you were lied to?

[Skittles]

1. aw make no mistake, ruggerson

one does not have to be gay to know this all completely STINKS

[peacebird]

5. my sentimens exactly...

[polichick]

28. +2

[katandmoon]

2. Of course! I may not be gay but repealing DADT and DOMA is of utmost importance to me.

Obama's characterization of himself during the campaign as a fierce advocate for gay rights could not be more hollow.

We were had by a skillful liar.

[EFerrari]

3. Most of us have a designated place under the bus.

:(

[ruggerson]

4. the unreccers are already here

which bolsters my strong belief that there is a lot of hostility for gay people here by people who actually pretend otherwise.

[Skittles]

13. oh absolutely

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I used my one lone vote to counter one of them.

They can unrec, but they can't change the truth.

[Fire1]

42. Exactly. Take a number. n/t

[hlthe2b]

6. Probably but given I have been waiting since 1972 for the ERA

to be ratified, with the last state to take it up (IN in 1977) before it was just allowed to die a slow death. So, in reality, women, are likewise dependent on the "good will" of society to protect our rights, though it increasingly appears that we do not really own our own bodies. Sorry, but you did ask...:shrug:

[ruggerson]

8. I strongly agree about the ERA

but (heterosexual) women can marry, join the armed forces and are protected from gender discrimination under federal statute.

So, I'm not sure what your point is.

[hlthe2b]

12. You have to ask what the point is when women don't even control their own

body? Women are not equal. They can not serve in combat officially, though obviously they have. Women are still not strictly protected from pay discrimination and still make far less than man after controlling for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. According to General Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-04-35, the weekly earnings of full-time working women were about three-fourths of men's during 2001. The report was prepared from a study of the earnings history of over 9,300 Americans for the last 18 years.
Working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This pay gap has persisted for the past two decades, remaining relatively consistent from 1983-2000.


It is unconscionable that gay men and women do not have the right to marry. But, it is beyond fathomable that patronizing old men, get to make the decisions about what a woman can and can not do with her body as well as her worth in the workplace. Get the point? Geez. I will fight for YOUR rights that are not yet ensured by law. It would be nice if you at least acknowledged mine. You know, I really would think that gay men would understand. sigh....

[ruggerson]

16. The inequities in our society are appalling

but the OP is about three specific areas where gay citizens have no rights under federal law at all.

FWIW, I would never vote for anyone but a pro choice candidate and strongly upport gender equality in every area of society and think that the ERA is still sorely needed. I think the fact that "federal funding" for abortion gets thrown under the bus (read: poor women) every other month by DEMOCRATS is disgusting.

But this OP is not about who is more victimized. It's about a specific set of promises to a specific community that have not been kept.

[Unvanguard]

7. I am disappointed, by both DADT and ENDA.

Honestly I thought outrage over DOMA was less justified, because Congressional support for repealing that was plainly lacking. But the inability to deliver ENDA--something that should have been passed last year, that a partial version of (without gender identity) they managed to get through last session with a much smaller Democratic majority--is deeply bothersome. And there is just such clear public support for repealing DADT that the excessive caution the Administration is trying to exercise--bring in the military leadership, institute some silly "review", hope it turns out well--seems simply out of place.

I don't think this administration is anti-gay, and I don't think Obama's promises to the LGBT community were particularly more dishonest than his promises to anyone else. But it's increasingly hard to resist the conclusion that I have spent much time resisting, that the president, and perhaps the Congressional leadership, is not willing to commit much effort or resources to securing LGBT rights legislation. (Perhaps the most clear-cut indicator of this came with the absence in the final product of the protections for gay families originally included in the House health care bill.)

[LakeSamish706]

9. If I were gay I would absolutely be disappointed. n/t

[VMI Dem]

10. Placing any kind of confidence or hope in a guy that morally objects to homosexuality is naive.

Look elsewhere for support.

[ruggerson]

11. that's just political posturing, imho

What else accounts for the fact that he was in favor of same sex marriage before he was against it?

I don't really have faith in any politician, but I occasionally have HOPE that they'll do what is morally right and correct.

[VMI Dem]

14. Certainly, continue to hope. I will continue to be unsurprised at lack of action.

[Unvanguard]

15. "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral"

- Barack Obama, March 15, 2007

http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-clarify-views-on-homosexuality/50609/

Nonetheless, he says he religiously objects to same-sex marriage. Like ruggerson, I think that is political posturing: it is hard to see how he consistently believe that (a) homosexuality is not immoral, (b) same-sex marriage should not be legal, and (c) Prop. 8 should have been voted down. The fact that there are statements from him as a Illinois state senator supporting same-sex marriage are further evidence for this view.

His problem is not opposition in abstract, it is an unwillingness to risk political controversy and fights over these issues.

[VMI Dem]

18. I think he is a smooth talking bigot, but we shall see.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. President Obama is NOT a bigot.

That's simply not true. You said that Obama morally objected to homosexuality and then another poster presented you with evidence to the contrary.

Just admit you were wrong and move on. There's no need to refer to Obama as a bigot.

[xchrom]

17. Recommend

[gateley]

19. If I were gay, I'd feel like I'd been kicked in the stomach. As it is, I'm furious about

it. The lack of support and proactive measures for the LGBT community disgusts me.

[MindandSoul]

20. Yes, I would be disapointed if DADT and other gay rights don't move forward this year.

But it would not turn me against this President. . .I have always known that he is not perfect, that he is pragmatic, and that he has a time line and a priority list.

I do realize that I don't know EVERYTHING about the running of such a complex government.

So, yes, although I am not gay and no one in my family is. . .I would be willing to advocate in any means available to me for the gay agenda to be brought forward.

[emilyg]

21. k/r

[TankLV]

22. I AM gay - and I'm used to it by now...

tomorrow I get a three day implant to monitor my sugar to better fight it - that's what I think about now...

I never expected much since he courted mcglurkin or whatshisname back in the campaign...

[tavalon]

23. No need to feel "like" we've been lied to. We HAVE been lied to.

[craigmatic]

24. Yeah I'd be very dissappointed. Especially since there's no logical reason to keep gays out of the

institution. They allow pregnate women to serve but an able bodied gay man can't? It's just plain old stupid discrimination and the gays should sue the military.

[Prism]

25. Disappointment is very last year

It's hard to be disappointed once you shift toward having no expectations of this president whatsoever. After the health care debacle, I've come to the conclusion there is almost nothing the President will not do to maintain political power and create the illusion of a transformative legacy a la Reagan. His naked "I will literally sign anything just to say I did it" approach has taken the blinders off once and for all.

This isn't about us. This is about him.

I think two memoirs before doing anything of consequence should've been the great big warning sign there of just how much all about him this all was.

Usually, I'm fairly cynical about politicians. But, I looked at Obama's record in the state senate and chalked up his endless dallying with homophobes as a requirement of the campaign. I figured, at least on gay issues, we'd get a moderate Democrat who would solidly move our issues forward. Not DOMA, no (though I didn't know his administration would bungle it so badly). I figured ENDA was a no-brainer and DADT would be an early major accomplishment.

At the very least, out of all this, I'm looking on with grim satisfaction as Joe Solmonese and all the rest of the cocktail crowd collapse into irrelevance. Their sycophantic knob-polishing has been exposed, their cluelessness, their powerlessness. The sooner we're rid of them, the better off we are.

As for the President. Meh. He'll do what he does. When it's safe, and when he can give himself a giant pat on the back for being so awesome. If that helps us, well, that'll be incidental.

I'm slowly pulling away from DU, because this truly isn't the place for our issues. Once a prominent poster told me she thought her job was to "sell" this President, I knew. What's going on with my family, my life, and my equality doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

It's all about him.

It's difficult to be disappointed in people who will proceed precisely parallel to their natures.

[babylonsister]

26. In a word, yes. nt

[CTLawGuy]

27. I understand your frustration with these things not getting done

however I would suggest that a lot of these things require congressional action and you should look to Congress for that action. The good news is, because of what's called a "discharge petition", any member of congress can bring any bill to a vote, if such member collects the signatures of the majority of the chamber--regardless of what the leadership wants. This is how McCain/Feingold was passed out of the Republican-controlled House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition

So, if Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich or any member of Congress wants to move on a repeal bill, and doesn't want to wait for the leadership, he or she can do so right now.

[CBGLuthier]

29. If I were gay I would know that republicans are fucking worse than any democrat ever elected.

Because being gay does not mean being stupid.

[salguine]

41. A Republican stabs you in the chest; a Democrat stabs you in the back.

[political_Dem]

30. Yes, it is not only disappointing for LGBT Folks,

but for all of us who want to expand and further Civil Rights in this country. You cannot help but feel hurt when you get thrown under the bus.

Folks of color know this tune all too well. We see it everyday of our lives, cradle to grave. From generation to generation, the story always seems the same.

It hurts to be forgotten in the struggle to advance the rights for all in this society.

But the thing is to keep on trying to break down those barriers and speaking out. Keep on trying to convince others why such equality (and in this case marriage equality, DADT, ENDA and other discriminatory measures) is important. The most relevant thing is to critically analyze patterns in society in order to bring "truth to power". After all, it is exposing the truth and brings stagnant power structures tumbling down.

Sadly in all our struggles--whether it has to do with race, women or sexual orientation, I also realize that change is rather slow. But I truly believe that we can make a new society in America if people are willing to continue to go up at bat to get these things out in the open so that more people can understand the issue.

Keep fighting the good fight, though. :)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. If I were gay, yes, I would be disappointed.

But I am straight.

And FURIOUS for my GLBT brothers and sisters. :mad:

A lot could have been done by Obama on this issue, but there is not enough political benefit to him and ol' Rahmbo for O to stick his neck out.

Of the may things I have come to disgust about this administration, this is one of the top.

[CreekDog]

32. If no progress has been made on these issues by the midterms, you've got to wonder

and that's if you're being charitable.

[Uzybone]

33. Yes...its very disappointing

Id just wonder why the pace has been so slow. The President has a lot on his plate, but I believe he could do more. Congress (including Barney Frank) has been dead on this issue IMO.

I wouldn't feel lied to however. Because I don't think it was a lie when Obama said he wants DADT repealed. Just how much he wants it repealed is the issue.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Yeah, I'd be disappointed

Maybe at the lack of the kind of intense advocacy for repealing DADT and enacting ENDA that he was ultimately forced to exhibit to help get HCR passed but I would understand why he might not be choosing to focus so much on it right now given everything else going on. Frankly, I'm amazed that he is able to keep things as straight as he does given the magnitude of the problems, as well as the Republicans and corporate media whores nipping at his heels. Furthermore, aside from the questionable idea that he can take some kind of unilateral action to stop discharges under DADT, there is very little that I would expect him to be able to do to repeal existing law on the matter.
I would, frankly, be more upset at the apparent Congressional inaction on these issues than I would be at President Obama who, after all, can essentially only make his feelings known on a given issue (and has). As we all know, members of Congress are the only ones whom sponsor legislation and help make sure it gets a vote and gets through both houses to the President's desk. By last count, there were at least two Senators and one Representative sponsoring legislation to repeal DADT. Repealing DADT and enacting ENDA seem to have plenty of support. Why is nobody acting on either piece of legislation? Tucking a repeal of DADT into the Defense Authorization Bill seems like an excellent strategy for getting it signed into law. Who has said that that idea has been dropped? Link?
As for President Obama, he DID ask Congress to repeal DADT in his SOTU address and his position on at least DADT and ENDA are completely in line with my own, so I would feel assured that he would eagerly sign off on both of these initiatives if and when they reach his desk. When will Congress send him bills to sign???? That's what I would be wanting to know. Am I missing something here? :shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Look at Obama's campaign rhetoric. He understands very well

that progress requires leadership and he asked for my vote with the specific promise to provide that leadership to Congress. He specifically noted that such leadership was lacking, was needed, and promised to provide it. No uncertain terms, many adjectives and lots of self serving terminology. So to frame it as 'he can only make his feelings known' is simply not in line with how he framed it. So the choices become either he was pushing great heaps of lies then, or he is failing to live up to his word now.

[jenmito]

36. Yes. But I think (and hope) he WILL pass these things like he SAID he would. n/t

[zulchzulu]

37. Be very educated

Obama clearly wants to get rid of DADT and amend ENDA.

It's up to Congress to do their job and get rid of DADT and amend ENDA. Obama is not a monarch.

Watch the video:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/obama.dadt.react/index.html

Be very honest and tell me that Obama really doesn't want to repeal DADT.

Barney Frank's interview (which oddly gets considered that he thinks Obama is not for repealing it by some sloppy bloggers) shows exactly what needs to be done:

...there will be a vote in the House. Rep. Patrick Murphy is going to offer his amendment. I think we’ll pass it in the House and then in the Senate – I’m told by some of the Senate leadership that they don’t think they have the votes to repeal it. People ought to talk to Sen. Carl Levin, he’s the key guy who’s our great ally.”

http://bit.ly/b0tUzV

We need to pressure our representatives to get off going on repealing DADT. I have (Tammy Baldwin)...

Great ENDA site:
http://www.equalityfederation.org/enda/

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Regarding DADT, my guess is that he had to promise no vote on it to get votes for HCR

But IMO this is one of those issues where conservadems are just being idiots for not welcoming a vote on. Sure, if the issue is about gay rights, that's going to be a losing proposition in some conservative districts. But what you do is you frame the issue in language that conservative leaning voters can understand, which is national security. Attack the Republicans for being weak on defense because they want to discharge crucially needed Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu speaking service members and that the highest ranking military official has argued that this is a policy that the military simply cannot afford to continue.

DADT is an issue that Democrats SHOULD take on in an election year because it will energize our base and the Republicans will lose. But in order to realize that they need to look beyond their polls for two seconds to realize that polls only tell you what voters are thinking right now, not what they will be thinking in November.

And from a moral standpoint I am disappointed that these things haven't gotten done. I'm also disappointed that the President hasn't shown more leadership on them. I'm also disappointed that Democrats can't look beyond their own district or state for two fucking seconds and realize that they have to work together and get legislative victories or the party will look so bad nationally that everybody is going to get swept out of office in November no matter how many tough votes they avoid or vote with the GOP on.

[change_notfinetuning]

39. If you are not disappointed with nearly everything, you are not paying

attention. With regard to DADT, if there were any kind of White House leadership, we wouldn't even be talking about it now. It's more than disappointing. It's disgraceful.

[Usrename]

44. Don't get me started...

+1

:kick: