Congratulations To President Obama

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Obama Administration’s request to temporarily freeze the repeal of DADT.  

This is great news for the administration that is fighting hard, spending taxpayer money (some of which comes from gay and lesbian taxpayers, I might add) to continue the practice of discharging gays and lesbians from the military.

“Fierce defender” my ass….…


8 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. cadenv says:

    don’t want to undermine your cause, I am with you on this.  But as far as the injunction goes, it is my belief that it would be detrimental to have members openly enlist just to be persecuted when/if DADT is reinstated.  I feel there would be a number of troops who enlisted openly (as they should be allowed to do) but ultimately subjected to a witch hunt should another court come to a different conclusion.  I’m torn, part of me wishes the Administration would just not appeal, but I am also sympathetic to the fact that they want to do it legislatively.  

    • Arvadonian says:

      is justice denied.

      Let’s face facts.  It isn’t going to happen legislatively.  Democrats are not going to have the numbers in the senate (for the forseeable future anyway—2010 is going to be a very difficult election cycle and 2012 is likely going to be worse—Dems are defending even more seats then) that they had at the beginning of 2009 and Obama/Reid dropped the ball when they didn’t bring up repeal while Kennedy was still in the senate (same with DOMA repeal and ENDA).  

      Republicans loathe the gays and will continue filibustering repeal and Democrats don’t like us enough to make a real issue of it.  So while I understand that Obama would prefer to go the legislative route (it is much easier to play politics with someone elses rights than it is your own), realistically the courts are our only route.

  2. JO says:

    1. Someone on this site the other day compared the movement for GLBT rights to “civil rights,” conjuring up the civil rights movement of the ’50s and’60s. Are gays barred from attending the same schools as straights? Forced to sit at the back of the bus? Barred from voting? Yes, in some cases, gays doubtlessly experience job discrimination. So do women, Jews, people over 40, 50, 60 –et cetera. Wrongfully. Needs to stop. But to suggest that the discrimination against gays is equivalent to, on the same scale as, the “discrimination” (as in unimaginable, disgraceful, epic injustice) suffered on this continent by African Americans since 1614 or so is not only ridiculous, but it’s wildly offensive.

    2. What’s all this I read about the Pentagon telling recruiters to go ahead and sign up gays? Are there large numbers (any number? what is the number?) of gays being discharged this month on grounds of sexuality? Is there NO PROGRESS on this front? Is serving in the military central to serving your country? Vital to self esteem? What?

    3. Courts. As you well know (or, perhaps, not know), there are limits to dependence on court rulings to address long-standing, deep-seated social issues. Do you imagine that it was the courts that ended discrimination against African Americans? (Or even that such discrimination has ended?) “Ah, voila! Brown vs. Board of Ed., 1954, and everything is rosy.” Is that why African Americans marched, suffered beatings, vicious attacks by the police for a decade or more trying to attend Ol’ Miss or get through the schoolhouse door past George Wallace in Alabama after Brown v. Board of Ed? Do you imagine that African Americans don’t suffer discrimination in this country far worse than that of gays every day of the week, every day of this week? I’m not an expert on this issue, but tell me: what was California Proposition 8 about? Something about popular opinion, however misguided, however misled, rejecting a court decision on this issue? Enlighten me.

    4. “Fierce defender.” No, I don’t think Barack Obama makes gay rights his #1 issue at a time when popular discontent is running wild and getting anything done is a fierce battle. I’ll go as far as to say maybe Barack Obama decided he had enough issues without adding another “Obama: Foreign Born Gay Marxist Muslim.” I don’t think he has ordered his cabinet departments to make it their #1 issue either. No, I don’t think he has told senior military officers to go stuff it and do what I say on this topic. Pick your fight and pick your time. Nasty world, politics.

    I do think that many/most/more every day people reject discrimination on grounds of sexuality, just as racism has declined but not ended. I do think there is much more “DADT” at work in the broader society than we may imagine. I do not think either major party is campaigning on grounds of denying gays social rights, as Dixiecrat Republicans did in the ’50s and ’60s. And there is a very good case to be made for putting this to legislatures instead of courts; my fingers are too tired to do it just now.

    And I do imagine that the problems faced by gay partners unable or unwilling to travel to Massachusetts to be “married” in order to gain those must-have, can’t-live-without-’em rights implied by particular legal status– and even then, facing popularly enacted amendments and a federal law denying recognition of gay marriage–fall in the realm of (a) people over 50 laid off due to recession and unable to find a job because of age discrimination; (b) the overwhelming problems faced by single mothers in a society that fails to track down and demand support from fathers; (c) the dismal futures of children born into a “culture of poverty,” where the idea of achievement and upward mobility is simply never presented, either by example or by lesson.

    Another view: how many white gay men who you know would accept this trade: become an African American woman and you can be married to your gay partner? No, it shouldn’t have to be a choice. But suppose it were?

    Utopia it ain’t. We’re all working on it, including Obama. By all means, leave the left half of your ballot blank. No one will notice or care, be assured. Ain’t nobody gonna look at the final figures and wonder, “Gee, why were their more votes for dog catcher in Arvadadonia than for U.S. senator? Guess I better demand that Obama repeal DADT NOW that I’ve won (or lost).”

    If you really imagine that’s how progress is going to be made on this issue–by not voting for anyone, by renouncing the whole lot as worthless–then comrade, you are your own worst enemy, not Ken Buck, not Michael Bennet, not Barack Obama. Meantime, enjoy your snit.

    • Arvadonian says:

      you really, really haven’t a clue.

      I have never said nor meant to minimize one group’s struggle over another.  I don’t buy into the “Jews had it worse than Blacks”; “Blacks had it worse than Jews”; “Gays had it worse than Blacks”; “Women had it worse than all of them”.

      I’ll tell you this though, the fact that in your mind African Americans had it harder than gays is of little comfort when you’ve lost friends to suicide because they were gay.  The next time this happens I’ll be sure to tell thier loved ones that they should just be glad their kid wasn’t black….their life would have been much harder.  Matthew Shepard was killed because of who he was just as much as James Byrd was killed because of who he was.

      My concern with Obama is that he has the power within his hands to do something positive…the courts have done the heavy lifting on DADT and DOMA….and he is seeking an injunction and appealing the rulings so these discriminatory laws can stay on the books!

      Would I take your silly little trade?  No.  I should not have to give up being who I am in order to get what legally should be mine anyway.  Would you become lesbian and give up your rights to marry?

      Let me say one other thing:  I’ve long been a member of the NAACP and The Southern Poverty Law Center….and I am a caucasian male.  We get nowhere when we pit minority against minority.  

      Would I vote for a gay candidate for office who supported efforts to remove Affimative Action programs for minorities?  No, I would not.

      • JO says:

        Since you chose to begin by telling me that I am really, really clueless — reasons for thinking so to follow — I conclude there’s no point in continuing this, any more than there was any point in my comment in the first place. Why? Not because one or another is wrong; because this is an emotional issue first and foremost, and therefore can’t really be discussed rationally. I have no problem with that, clueless as I am.

        If you want to, or think it clever, to go on the attack against me, to posit me into an enemy of your cause, just as you’re intent on thinking of Obama as an enemy of your cause, well, then I conclude that I am really, really, really clueless!

        If you think by one federal district court judge’s ruling constitutes “the courts have done the heaving lifting,” again, I’m without a clue! Better see if I can get a job collecting grocery carts from the parking lot!

        Just one point, however. You mention Matthew Shepard. You could also have mentioned Tyler Clementi and the horrifying, sickening string of other victims of bullying–not by the law, mind you, but by wretched adolescents in most cases. Is Obama responsible for those as well?

        You mention Shepard in the context of James Byrd. Well, brother, your hard disc isn’t big enough to store all the names of victims of slavery, lynching, broken families, humiliation, rape. You think there’s no comparison? Fair enough. You’re the one with the clues, not I.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.