Gay rights (possible) turn around.

[UCBooties]

It was already brought up in the thread, Shepples.

No, it's not the explanation put forth by others. I'll let ya guys think about it for a moment.

Bah, I hate this game. Just say what you mean and be done with it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think anything more should be done viz. the DOMA at this moment, because I'm still afraid of a vast conservative backlash in the heartland if it's touched, so this move seems reasonably all that can be done with the DOMA. The refusal to move on DADT, however, is reprehensible. There remains no higher insult possible against a class of citizens, than to suggest they are so mistrustworthy and defective that they can never dare speak of their love allowed, or else be denied that fundamental of social roles in protecting their broader society and fellow-citizens, the ultimate example of mistrust. As long as DADT remains in place, LGBT people in America will, without reservation, fundamentally remain in all respects second-class citizens in the United States, and its removal will represent THE principle and significant change possible for Obama to work toward in his first term. And his refusal to do so, and tossing the buck to that reprehensible salamander Harry Reid, is a telling example of discrimination.

DADT is an uncomplicated measure, broadly supported by the US public and a wide swathe of retired officers of General rank. There is no more discussion nor debate to be had on the issue, and while I will readily defend Obama's caution to approach the issue of DOMA, to me the refusal to move on DADT indicates something darker at work. He should at the very least be demanding Congress immediately present him a bill, by the end of this year, to fully repeal DADT, and speaking loudly and vocally on the utter foolishness of denying America trained soldiers in wartime, and for that matter letting shirkers use it as an excuse to get out of the service when they're needed, also as it stands in wartime. The policy is fucked to hell and back and needs to go now for there to be any fundamental movement on issues of equality, and for that, some real ire and outrage are fully justified.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

To say that the gays are angry at the president for simply following the law is an oversimplification of the situation that ignores a plethora of factors that lead up to this response.

No, it is not an oversimplification. The Justice Department is legally obligated to defend the laws presently on the books. The president cannot overturn laws on mere executive fiat. He is not the king (even despite the fact that the previous occupants of the White House seemed to think so). He cannot refuse to do his legal and constitutional duty nor direct the Justice Department or any Executive Branch agency to do so.

DOMA was an act of Congress and as such must either be struck down in the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. Until that happens, this president's hands are tied by the constraints of the laws he is bound by oath to carry out.

For the third time, what does the President's limitations have anything to do with the fact that the LGBT community is angry at Obama for many reasons as opposed to just this one? If let's say Obama had made a more aggressive push to repeal DADT, or if Obama had made a gay-rights affirming statement the day the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, or if the DoJ's brief contained lighter arguments - if ANY of these were done, you would not see the angry reaction you see today.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To say that the gays are angry at the president for simply following the law is an oversimplification of the situation that ignores a plethora of factors that lead up to this response.

No, it is not an oversimplification. The Justice Department is legally obligated to defend the laws presently on the books. The president cannot overturn laws on mere executive fiat. He is not the king (even despite the fact that the previous occupants of the White House seemed to think so). He cannot refuse to do his legal and constitutional duty nor direct the Justice Department or any Executive Branch agency to do so.

DOMA was an act of Congress and as such must either be struck down in the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. Until that happens, this president's hands are tied by the constraints of the laws he is bound by oath to carry out.

For the third time, what does the President's limitations have anything to do with the fact that the LGBT community is angry at Obama for many reasons as opposed to just this one? If let's say Obama had made a more aggressive push to repeal DADT, or if Obama had made a gay-rights affirming statement the day the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, or if the DoJ's brief contained lighter arguments - if ANY of these were done, you would not see the angry reaction you see today.

You do realize the guy was elected explicitly opposing gay marriage, right?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

There is a fine line between frustration and anger. Frustration I get, hell I understand and support frustration. From any perspective its a simple issue of equality of rights, something that should be so basic as to defy contradiction...so I get frustration that Obama hasn't done more. I get frustration that DADT and DoMA have not been top priority items, I get that hearing there are "more important things" than equal rights is a shitty excuse for not doing more.

The line is one of perception when frustration becomes anger. Getting honestly angry at Obama for the pace of reform (and he is doing something if admittedly under pressure) or for the lack of attention to GLBT issues is counterproductive. Anger solves nothing as it creates irrational distrust where the rationally frustrated see the political winds and can therefore seek to direct them.

Obviously since this distinction is so much a matter of emotion and it doesn't directly affect me I won't pretend to know how hard or easy it is to be frustrated but not angry but that would be my advice.

The line between frustration and anger is indeed a fine one. But seriously, what exactly has the LGBT community done to espouse irrational distrust? The most that is happening is that a few prominent gay individuals are withdrawing from a Democratic fundraising event and that there have been a number of small and peaceful protests around the country. No one in the community is advocating any violent or unlawful responses. Hell, the day Prop 8 passed, which was a definitely worse development than this, the protests were numerous all over the country but they were still very peaceful with the exception to a small handful of arrests. I don't think any of these responses are at all unreasonable or irresponsible and the leaders of these communities have been commendably good at keeping it that way.

And of course, the vast majority of angry sentiment is actually being channeled towards working to win victories on a local scale (at least in California). Here, there is a huge grassroots movement that has been growing since Prop 8 and the administration's defense of DoMA is viewed quite small here compared to the upcoming battle to repeal Prop 8 next year. But of course, none of that is getting much media coverage at all.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You do realize the guy was elected explicitly opposing gay marriage, right?

More specifically, the guy was also elected on the promise of repealing DoMA and fighting for equality. His campaign views are admittedly contradictory but many LGBT were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (ie. he publicly "opposed" gay marriage to stay politically viable).

[Samuel]

You do realize the guy was elected explicitly opposing gay marriage, right?

More specifically, the guy was also elected on the promise of repealing DoMA and fighting for equality. His campaign views are admittedly contradictory but many LGBT were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (ie. he publicly "opposed" gay marriage to stay politically viable).

I don't see why people always assume there is a hidden plan. It could be that he is actually bigotted towards gays and will do nothing. Do we have any evidence aside from the hope that he is subtly politically maneuvering?

[MKSheppard]

Bah, I hate this game. Just say what you mean and be done with it.

Would you feel comfortable flying from Logan to Dulles with a blind man as your pilot

[CmdrWilkens]

You do realize the guy was elected explicitly opposing gay marriage, right?

More specifically, the guy was also elected on the promise of repealing DoMA and fighting for equality. His campaign views are admittedly contradictory but many LGBT were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (ie. he publicly "opposed" gay marriage to stay politically viable).

I don't see why people always assume there is a hidden plan. It could be that he is actually bigotted towards gays and will do nothing. Do we have any evidence aside from the hope that he is subtly politically maneuvering?

Alternatively he isn't bigoted but doesn't actually care enough to expend political capital on something that isn't anywhere near as important to him as everything else. There is certainly more than enough room for apathy on the subject being the driving force.

[Broomstick]

Bah, I hate this game. Just say what you mean and be done with it.

Would you feel comfortable flying from Logan to Dulles with a blind man as your pilot

If I'm riding shotgun with the controls in reach so I can take over if need be? Hmm... could be an interesting afternoon, and I've been adrenalin deficient lately.....

Nevermind, I'm hardly a typical case, am I?

Now - what the hell are you blathering on about Shep? Why not just spit it out plainly?