Oh, brother, it's fun when an idiot calls someone clever an idiot. Thanks for all you did to let us know, and fingers crossed...

We really have to rally for this president and prevent the opposition from retaking power and destroying the progress we've made. It is crucial!

Meanwhile, Canada will continue to be 20 years ahead of you with a stronger GDP and lower unemployment, and all the rights you won't get until you force them to give them to you ...

Have fun waiting for your corporate masters to finally permit you your rights.

"Was it Rahm's departure? Was it the realization that gay issues are now a wedge issue that divides Republicans? Was it panic about the drop in gay donations to Dems during the mid-terms and the rise in the percentage of the gay vote going to Republicans?" Etc., etc.

Dan, why can't you at least allow for the possibility that
Team Obama's intentions are actually good? That they actually have our interests in mind? Maybe proceeding slowly, allowing all the processes of government to move at the pace they move at, is best. No, we don't get everything we want the minute we want it, but who ever does?

Just one example: Congress repealing DADT rather than an executive order: it has the force of law and can't simply be reversed by President Barbour's next executive order. And it happened!

Is the last paragraph sarcasm? Tone doesn't carry well online, and Dan's proven to be quite adept at portraying different meanings with the same words in different contexts.

Maybe, all of the above. Plus, a little bit of "squeaky wheel gets some grease" or a bit from the parable of the persistent widow? Congratulations to all who are working towards 'righting' this 'wrong'. Keep up the good work.

Cheers!

@2 -- maybe a Bachmann for President campaign donation, to help her get the nomination...

@3 -- wow, you're so lucky you live in Canada.

What is a "stronger GDP", Will?

Canadian and US GDP

???

???!!!?!?!?

@4 -- It's partially because some of the administration's pro-gay behavior isn't simply taking a while to move on issues, but an active reversal of earlier behavior. The recent end of the Justice Department's defense of DOMA wasn't simply Obama taking his time to do something about it but was an outright reversal of a time when Obama's JD actively defended it after promising to do something about it. It's hard to believe in good intentions when what we see is "Promise to do X, then actively thwarting the doing of X, and when the lack of doing X is a possible political weakness then start actually doing X."

good points, MythicFox.

My point stands. The reason Canada has women's rights in the Constitution and has had gays serving in the military for so long many have now retired with full benefits and has had full gay marriage rights is that they were willing to go to the wall on it, and not accept "maybe" or "sometime" as an answer.

If you're happy waiting until 2030 when enough old Tea Party people die off, be my guest. But other countries made it happen long ago.

Look, gays won.

Stop trying to fight the last war, I tell my fellow Republicans.

Focus on the only issues that matter -- economic, tax and fairness.

Bush made similar moves with environmental legislation.

So while you are correct that the president does have these sorts of powers, at the end of the day, it would be nice if the president didn't. But we have the presidency we have not the one we wish we had... so I agree that Obama should do this.

They can have my money when they stop cutting funding to social programs while at the same time starting more oil wars.

Rahm's anti-gay?

The RPS speaks to the contrary. (Though I do wonder what Michelle thinks of the fanart.)

@15 I think he might be alluding to the possibility that Rahm's political calculus came out that taking these actions would be net loss in the coming election.

Hopefully I'm not putting words in peoples mouths though.

Two possiblities: One- Obama knows he's a lame duck, and is therefore following his true beliefs, instead of politics, or Two- he and his advisors actually believe the field of Rethugs is so repellent that he'll be re-elected regardless of what he does. Either way, I'll take the progress happily.
I'd be so tickled to see the Rethugs LOSE at this culture war shit. Have it blow up in their faces, unlike the last 20 years of its use in politics. 2012 just might be the year, if only the economy would pick up by then.

Yay! I'm very happy for you. That's wonderful news! The process is difficult enough if you're straight, I can't imagine how difficult it is for gay couples.

I'm currently looking at emigrating with my partner, and even for us straight people, it can be pretty hard. They want to see evidence of joint finances and since we don't have a car or a house in our name (hello, we're in our early 20's with 35,000 in student debt each) they're saying there's a good chance my application will be denied. sadface.

I'm a Canadian in a binational couple that will hopefully benefit from this policy change. I'm also more of a libertarian and anti-Democrat. But fuck that. Now Obama has my total adoration and complete support. I don't care if I'm a whore. I will go to the mat for this man! Thank you Mr. Prez, you have given my life meaning again. I was living like a ghost, no lie. Now I have hope. Thank you, thank you.

PS If a Republican gets in, do you think he would mass-deport all the gays in this situation? Fuck that would be gothic.

What would be really great is not having to ask the government's permission for your spouse (regardless of sex combination) to continue to live in the country with you, AT ALL. There's something fundamentally dehumanizing about this that people who have not had to do it simply cannot fully appreciate.

11, as a Canadian, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Yes, there was opposition, and yes, the gains that were made were fought for. However, it really wasn't a case of brave Canadians being willing to go to the wall, while the wimpy Americans accept their fate. Rather, the two societies are very different - religion does not play anywhere NEAR the role in Canadian politics that is does in American. It's quite rare for a candidate's religious affiliation to come up at all in a campaign, and we just don't have the right wing religious nut jobs you've got, not in anything like real numbers.

The reason this fight is taking longer in the States is because you've got a more powerful and determined enemy.

@17

Third choice: Obama and his advisors believe that being visibly pro-gay will gain him more support among those who might conceivably vote for him than doing so will cost him. He can write off the Tea Party and similar dedicated right-wing base.

It used to be that there was no value in being pro-gay - we could reliably be counted to vote Democrat regardless, and enough independents cared enough that they would vote against pro-gay politicians. The tide is turning to the point where the independents don't particularly care enough to vote against someone purely on the fact that they support gay equality, and we have enough allies who do care to make it worth their while.

Whether he's right or not remains to be seen. But it seems clear that it will be true at some point pretty soon.

Our dreams have been dashed -- there is no change in the policy after all:

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011…

So I guess on top of being discriminated against, we're being toyed with as well? I guess we're just made to suffer...

So nobody here remembers what happened when Clinton instituted DADT in the first couple months of office?

Obama is moving on these issues at a time when the Republicans are falling all over themselves to repeal health insurance reform, fix the deficit, and somehow not raise taxes. In other words, when they can't stop him. Obama's priority, always, was health insurance reform. It was personal: he did it for his mother. Now he's moving on everybody else's priorities. But we should give Dan credit for helping to keep the flame alive.

Obama's a brilliant strategist. And to think I voted for Hillary........ I don't mind having lost that battle.