Obama: Some Federal Employees Are More Equal Than Others

Comments

1
Could you be more incompetent when it comes to understanding how the government of this country works? Probably not. You should sit in on your sons basic civic course.
2
"Could the Obama administration possibly be MORE incompetent on gay issues?"

Well, they could be the Bush administration. They thought 'gay' still meant 'happy'.
3
depends on your idealized conception of "competent"

It's more than we got from Bush Jr., more than we got from Clinton, more than we got from Bush Sr., more than we got from etc. etc. etc.

It's still not your conceptualized idea of good enough, but now nothing ever will be -- short of trotting out the Supremes in gags and leather, amirite???
4
It's ok Dan, it's only a memorandum and not an executive order, so it'll expire after he leaves office. That's long, lasting, far-reaching change right there.
5
they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.


Keep lying, Dan.
6
Talk about opening up a can of worms!

Having worked with the census, I have some minor clue how freaking complicated the federal government makes things. "Same-sex partners" is just a can of worms, made worse by the lack of forthrightness on Obama's part.

Example: How does the federal government decide which partners are eligible? For heteros, the decision is easy: marriage = eligible. It would be easy to apply the same rule to homos (a state recognized civil union / domestic partnership could be made to fit). But what about fed workers in states without ssm or domestic partnerships? And how could the federal government recognize same sex marriage for some purposes (federal employee benefits) and not some others (taxes, tax-free inheritance, etc. ad nauseum)? Talk about making life more complicated than necessary.

So how to get out of this shitstorm? How about by being brave and just repealing the section of DOMA that forbids federal recognition of SSM. (We'll leave the other section for later.)

But, that would take courage and conviction, qualities sorely lacking in our current president.
7
You have a filthy mouth, spudbeach. That is the most disgusting thing I have seen on Slog for days.

"But, that would take courage and conviction, qualities sorely lacking in our current president. "

How dare you.

Dan: Do you see what all this hate speech does? I am shaking my head in disbelief.
8
Okay, as someone who isn't up on this issue, why would health benefits require legislation, while other benefits would not? The Times article doesn't address that at all.
9
Dan - gay is the old black
10
at least with Bush we expected to be screwed and never trusted him to begin with so it never felt like betrayal.
11
"I'm speechless."
ok
now we're praying your fingers go numb
12
No, you're not speechless, Dan, and I wish you were right now as more important (yes, MORE IMPORTANT) issues such as national health care reform, Iranian unrest, and crazy-ass nuclear North Korea should be on our President's mind. He won't issue an apology for the DOMA brief because it's not politically expedient to do so. Better to have his own troops riled up than the right, for now. I'll be angry if it happens again, but I firmly believe that word has come down to the locals that file such briefs that the times have changed since the last administration (when they were probably all hired).
13
@6 Providing benefits to same sex partners is not recognizing gay marriage, and plenty of companies and employers all over the country do it. It's hardly a can of worms.

And, Obama cannot just repeal a section of DOMA. Congress does that, the President signs it. Whether or not that actually happens...?
14
The president cannot make laws. He cannot simply will DOMA away. Just in case that wasn't clear.
15
Don't listen to assfaces like "hal." You and other media personalities (including Rachel Maddow, et al) need to be pressing this as hard as you can.

Tomorrow Obama will enact something that had *already been in the works* and was still being written this evening, just to be announced tomorrow (too late for the evening news cycle to pick it up, interestingly enough). This isn't even DECENT damage control, and I should know considering that I've had to do my share on behalf of my company.
16
@12. What I'm really puzzled by is the administration's inaction on DADT, even given the laundry list of things you mention. An overwhelming majority of Americans support it (75%, including 64% of Republicans), so it doesn't seem like there's much political risk. While Congress must overturn the law, the President could stop enforcement right now with an executive order. And, how much time exactly would it take for some lackey to draft the order and him to sign it? I doubt it would be a distraction from all the issues you mentioned.

Plus, DADT is making us less safe, to borrow a Bush era talking point. Allowing gay Arabic translators to be dismissed right now, given the current geopolitical situation, is absolutely insane. So, why no action?
17
@16:

Polls when an issue isn't actually on the table aren't all that interesting. As soon as such a shift came into public awareness, advocacy groups would start their work, and opinions may well mirror 1993 (the last time it came up, right?). So no, not something that overshadows my "laundry list."
18
Shut it down!!

Not one nickel to the DNC!

Right the fuck on, Dan Savage!!!!!!!

19
This whole "nothing matters except gay rights, fuck all other orders of business" attitude is getting kind of old now.
20
@17 - Not buying it. When the military was racially integrated (in the FIFTIES), public opinion polls were firmly AGAINST it. Truman did it anyway, and people accepted it or learned to live with it, and after a little while it became a non-issue for anyone but the bigots. There is absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't be a much smoother transition for dismantling DADT.

Julie is right - the lack of action on DADT makes no sense.
21
@17, okay, even if over 25% of the American people suddenly change their mind on DADT (which seems unlikely), how much time exactly would an executive order by Obama take? Would half a day of a lackey's time be too distracting for the administration? Good people, people our military needs right now, are being dismissed. Obama could stop it with almost zero investment of time/resources, but he doesn't.
22
they are obviously listening.... keep it up Dan!
23
But wait... isn't this discrimination... against straights?! Now the unmarried partners of gay employees are eligible for benefits, while the unmarried partners of straight employees are not. Reverse discrimination!
24
Gotta love all these arguments about how powerless Obama is to do anything substantive. Apparently, the only thing he has enough power to do is to defend bigoted laws like DOMA in federal court.
25
Dan, it's rare that I agree with you, and I'm sad it's over something like this. After the hard work I watched many of my gay friends put into Obama's campaign, I know this has to feel like betrayal. Keep holding this administration's feet to the fire.
26
I think commenter number 10 makes the point here...
27
BENEFITS!*

*Benefits not included. Not valid with any other offer. Offer expires January 2012. Limit one per household. Local and federal taxes may apply.
28
@27... lolz. Also, Void where prohibited
29
@20:

The racial integration comparison is not valid. Throughout the world, racial barriers began dropping more than 100 years before we integrated our armed forces (officially - although it had happened, as Hollywood will be happy to show you multiple movies about, long before). You can't say the same about gay rights. I'm not justifying that kind of timeline, but it's also not the same. At all.
30
I hear the Green Party makes great tacos. They should host their own fundraiser the same night as the DNC's.
31
Echoing @6, it's so true that figuring out the best method to systematically and institutionally treat a group of people as lesser makes life difficult for everyone. So many issues come up! Obama is finding out what a hassle gays are, always with the wanting wanting wanting! Hey gays, a little more accessorizing, a little less expecting to be treated like a fully formed human, thanks.
32
@21:

We aren't going to pull one over on these people - whether it's discussing or acting, as soon as this is in the hands of FOX News, it's DOA. Maybe it lasts through an Obama administration, but it could also be the issue that is pressed too early and forces Obama to the right (see Clinton, William J.). I'm not against repealing DADT, but also want to pick my fights.
33
Well, I guess it's time to pack up and go home. Hasn't fixed the economy yet? Enacted more banking regulation? Ended the recession? Reduced the budget deficit? Immigration reform? Healthcare reform? The Iraq war? The Afghanistan war? Dealt with China yet? North Korea? Pakistan? Solve our energy problems? Bettered education? Too late. IT CAN NEVER BE DONE. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE KING OBAMA IGNORE "REALITY" AND "CONGRESS" AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTS?!?!
34
Duh, I meant to say 2013.
35
I know that the internet is a race and I'm loosing it. Sorry if this is old news, but according to the Advocate, Majority Leader Reid has issued a clarification of his comments made on Monday about DADT. That there is no bill at this time, but there are a number of senators working on it.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti…
36
How the fuck can you bitch about this being a memorandum and not law, thus not being permanent, and also bitch he's not giving out waivers for people being fired under DADT, thus not being permanent?

For fucks sake, stop acting like the silly Tea-Baggers and actually learn how government functions without hyperventilating.

37
@20

Truman integrated the military three years into his term, not six months, and it was a big deal. The Armed forces did not immediately integrate either, but were pushed by the Korean war. Non-combat areas were still segregated. Moreover, segregation still existed in the outside world and there was still discrimination IN the military after Truman's order. Point being, an executive order for DADT is not a slam dunk that everyone portrays it as, and this rosy picture of post interegration love and flowers is exaggerated.
38
Silence got us nothing, and a little bigotry on top.

Pissing and moaning over the internet got us a broken band-aid.

Now what, after this? Bitch a little more over what Obama gave us, and then go back to silence?
39
Speaking of the Census, someone should ask the Obama Administration if they still plan to count legally married same-sex couples as unmarried single residents.

(And, searching, it looks like the new Congressman from Illinois is: see today's HuffPost.)
40
@20
Sorry, not buying it.

There were no laws passed by the congress banning racial integration of the armed forces. Obama isn't KOTUS and actually has to deal with existing law.
41
I unsubscribed my Obama spam today.

How many volunteers do we have so far to get arrested at teh WH?
42
Fucking hell, I've missed having a nation of laws for those 8 years and I'm pissed off that you just want to throw that all away now, and because I actually like a president who doesn't ignore the law I'm an "Obamapologist"?

I no longer give a shit at all about what Obama does for gay rights. As far as I'm concerned he should issue a presidential memorandum telling you to fuck off.
43
Maybe the extra cost of extending those health care benefits complicates the ongoing negotiations over the cost of a public health care option and that's why they don't want to talk about it right now, with those negotiations at a very delicate stage and passage not at all certain.
44
Oh, and I'm a homophobe.
45
@36 – Um, okay, because we need the people who are being dismissed under DADT? Like, right now? So, a good stopgap measure until Congress acts on DADT would be to issue a temporary order suspending enforcement? And then Congress can overturn the law?

And @32. I seriously don’t see the issue with an executive order here. Why the fuck cares what Fox News thinks in this instance? If/when, Obama decides to work with Congress on it, then he’ll be spending political capital and could possibly run into the same issues as Clinton (though, hello, it’s been 16 years, and I’m pretty sure public sentiment on teh gays has swayed significantly in that time. As evidenced by the polls I cited.).

But, what is the downside of an executive order suspending enforcement? We get the people we need remaining in the military right now, and we get time so that the top brass can say after a period of time that it’s not affecting morale, operations, etc. Thus, easier to get the law overturned in Congress.

Honestly, I’d love the law to go away, but I’d be comfortable if that happened in 2-3 years, and in the meantime, gay soldiers were able to keep their fucking jobs and we, as a country, weren’t wasting resources on soldiers (that we need... right now) who we train and then dismiss.
46
Here's the little I know about racial desegregation in the army.

"On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.

Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s African-American citizens.

The true fulfillment of the entire scope of Executive Order 9981—equality of treatment and opportunity—actually required an additional change in Defense Department policy. This occurred with the publication of Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 on 26 July 1963, 15 years to the day after Truman signed the original order. This major about-face in policy issued by Secretary of Defense Robert J. McNamara expanded the military’s responsibility to include the elimination of off-base discrimination detrimental to the military effectiveness of black servicemen."

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/int…
47
Doctor Professor,

Are you okay? Are you just blowing off steam, because that's cool (at least to me it is).
48
If gay furor tanks other progressive causes (like health care reform), I'm all for it. It's one thing to have the GOP screw you over, but when it's your supposed allies? Fuck 'em.
49
@45:

Part of my point was that your polls are testing an issue that hasn't been at the forefront of people's minds (other than "teh gays") for 16 years. Irrelevant. And unlike your Koffee Klatch down in Eugene, much of America DOES care what FOX News tells them is important. You don't see the issue because honestly, you aren't near enough to the issue (closed-minded people) to understand.

As for providing needed bodies for war, I'm OK with preventing grunts, gay or straight, from dying.
50
@47

I think I am, which I get is a little silly to do when it seems like a lot of Slog might be blowing off steam, but I think they're doing it over the wrong issues. Dan is trying to act like the law shouldn't apply to Obama with issues like DOMA and DADT, and is taking it all way to personal, which to an extent is understandable considering these issues literally affect his life and his family. But he's still taking it way to far and is acting like Obama is plotting against Dan personally, when really Obama is just constrained by the forces of an institution that he has little control over.
51
@ 50,

Okay, I was just checking and I'm glad you are fine.
52
@49. Are you okay with over 50 gay Arabic translators being dismissed? I mean, I can't think of any reason why we might need those people, right?

And my point is, really, even if Fox news comes out against it, and 25% of the people change their minds (which, again, I highly doubt is going to happen -- I'm originally from a small town in the Midwest, so I know all about close-minded people)... even if that happens, what is the downside with Obama issuing an executive order? How will the fact that people disapprove of it matter? He can still do it, we as a country can still reap the benefits right now, and it buys Congress time and cover to act on it some time before his first term is over.
54
""Guess what? It's not an executive order, it's just a "presidential memorandum," which means this directive expires when Obama leaves office"

Is that actually true? I keep reading they don't expire and are like executive orders, but considered "less prestigious?"
55
@52:

I'm going to wait for you to finish school before answering your question about how public opinion matters.
56
Deep breath, honey. We don't want you having a stroke.
57
@52

An executive order isn't permanent and removes any need for congress to officially repeal the law so that the next time a Republican is elected it will likely just go away again(think of the Mexico City policy). This is basically what Dan is now complaining about with the memorandum and it not being permanent, he's holding a double standard that Obama should do whatever makes Dan most satisfied regardless of the law.
58
The excuse that its too politically difficult is bullshit. You know what's a lot more politically difficult? Fixing health care. And enacting meaningful financial regulations, and combating climate change. If Obama can't take on the gay rights issue then I am looking forward to the "middle ground solutions" he's going to offer on other issues. The middle ground being right smack in between interest groups and their bloated congressional patrons.
59
@58:

Saying that other things are more or less politically difficult doesn't change the fact that they have a higher priority for our country than your pet issue. I wish that Obama would declare my birthday "No Discrimination Against People with Small Dicks Day," which is incredibly easy, but it's not going to happen because there are far more difficult and important things on which to spend political capital.
60
@55. So, we should never do anything that the majority of American people don't support (I'm not going to go into the slavery argument, really, I'm not)?

Plus, we're only talking abouthypothetical disapproval here because 75% of people currently are absolutely fine with gays in the military. Jesus.
61
@60:

If that were the case, and it were spread in ways meaningful to electoral politics, the Congress would repeal DADT tomorrow. If they do, great. But don't ask Obama to do it on the same basis - his considerations are different. Allah.
62
@50:
As a long time Slog/Savage fan, I have to agree - Dan's coverage has been disappointing. Lot's of self-righteousness, lot's of anger, lot's ignorance about how government works, lot's of unfair assumptions about the administration's motives, and even some outright misinformation (e.g. attributing the wording of the DOMA defense to Obama himself).

Very little if any insight or intelligence.

It's a fact that our ability to reason drops when we're flooded with anger. We oversimplify, we react defensively, our perspective narrows, we say stupid shit. It's kind of like being drunk. There are thousands of angry (and drunk) comments on Slog to prove this point.

But Dan is a professional writer and has been for years. By now, his game should have evolved beyond the diatribe. There is a lot to write about here, but instead he seems content simply to rant like so many other media boneheads. Bummer.
63
@57. No, it doesn't remove any need for Congress to repeal the law. Because, as you said, an executive order isn't permanent, it can be overturned by subsequent presidents. If Congress believes that the right thing to do is to allow gays in the military permanently, then they should overturn the law. And if they have 2 years of evidence that gays in the military do not destroy morale, then it will be that much easier for them to do it.

So, for DADT, a temporary solution is acceptable, maybe even ideal from a "getting it done politically" standpoint. For federal benefits, I'm not 100% clear on the difference between a "presidential memorandum" and an "executive order." But if, as is being suggested, the memorandum expires at the end of his term, then that is certainly less desirable than an order that would stay in place until overturned.
64
2005 Boston Globe poll -- 79% of Americans support gays in military
2006 Zogby poll -- 73% of military members are comfortable serving with gays and lesbians.
2007 CNN poll -- 79% support for repealing DADT

Public opinion overwhelmingly supports the repeal. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that Congress will then repeal it. If these people support the repeal, but are not actively campaigning against it (which, it's likely they are not), then why would Congress act? Your logic is ridiculous (if the people were for it, Congress would act, so the people must not be for it even though all of the polls say they are?).
65
It seems like, if Obama is so busy and has only so much political capital to risk, he should just work to repeal DOMA and DADT and be done with it. He seems to be losing a lot more supporters, and spending a lot more effort justifying his silence (or worse) on these issues, than if he'd just work for gay rights like he said he would. These issues aren't going to go away until gays achieve full equality, so by not touching these issues, he's keeping them on the table as issues.

An executive order to suspend DADT, while it wouldn't be permanent, would be quick and effective; it would at least put a stop to the dismissal of gay soldiers while congress takes its sweet time getting up off its ass on the issue. It would also give people time to see that having out soldiers in the military really doesn't result in chaos (because it won't), so there will be more public support for a full permanent repeal of DADT. I think we can all agree that, while not a member of the legislative branch, the President does have some power of persuasion. If he shows at least some signs of a plan to do something about DADT, maybe congress would be more motivated to get on board as well.

And DOMA, well, sure Obama can't just will it away. But he can urge the legislative branch to repeal it and voice his intentions to sign a repeal if they pass one. Or at least fire the Bushy holdover that wrote it, or voice his disagreement with the brief and his disgust that it has been filed in the name of his administration. By not doing so, he's endorsing DOMA.

Before, my argument was that expecting Obama to do something doesn't mean that we expect him to do everything. Now that he's allowing his underlings to waste their time defending DOMA, I think even those who argued that he was "too busy" before have to admit that something's not right here. And this empty, hurried gesture where he gives a few of the more useless federal benefits to the partners of gay federal employees isn't enough to win my trust.

So once again (and again): it's not that we expect Obama to put gays at the very tippy-tip-top of his agenda list and fix every gay problem by tomorrow. It's that there's some sort of a HAPPY MEDIUM between that and his current strategy of flipping the gay community a not-so-subtle finger, and we wish that he'd move somewhere closer to that medium. Is that really so unreasonable?

Do you know what's more unreasonable and unrealistic than expecting the President to address gay rights while he has these other issues to face? Expecting us to wait patiently until the international situation and the economy have been "fixed" once and for all before we dare to trouble him with civil rights. Would anyone like to tell me when was the last time that there were no international or economic concerns facing our country (or any country)? Has any major progress in civil rights EVER been made at a time when there weren't other, "more important" issues at hand?
66
Thanks for your comments, Dan. Your words tap the outrage & frustration that I, and probably hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people feel all over this country. Keep up the good work. With flaming advocacy like yours, we can't lose. Not this time.
67
@64:

Teh polls are not the proper barometer for Obama. He was elected as a "big table" uniter - much as Bush II was in 2000. There is no big table on this issue, there is latent polling. Show me post-presentation polling, and I will join you. Show me "sleeping issue" polls, and I will continue to call your BS.
68
@64 Part Deux:

If the overwhelming opinion were in favor, yes, it would be repealed by Congress - our representatives. So if your polls are accurate, it will be gone tomorrow. Which I hope it is.
69
@64

Take it up with congress. The problem is that in the senate, there are 22 Democrats who represent over 50% of the population. This means that just on a whole, the senate is an extremely conservative body relative to the country at large, which means that even though a DADT repeal has wide support it doesn't mean that there's wide support in the senate. It's why other issues, like healthcare reform and immigration reform also have pretty high public support for Obama's plans and yet are going to be extremely difficult to pass.
70
Dan probably masturbates whilst reading the comments on his blog. What a self-absorbed douche. Pay more attention to the 'sanctity' of your open relationship, hypocrite.
71
I am not a political science expert per se. I do hold a masters degree in the subject, so I do know a bit more than the average joe. (the average joe in the U.S. being unable to locate the state of Maine on a map). I teach lower level polictical science classes to undergrads as an adjunct professor. I would like to suggest that it is many of you and not Mr. Savage who might benefit from taking a few classes of this nature. Remember that there is a VAST difference between the law and government and politics, not to mention political reality. Mr. Savage is largely talking about politics and political manuvers and not the legislative process (see 'how a bill becomes a law'). Politicians make promises, the only way to make them honor the promises is to force their hands. And not for nothing, but I am capable of thinking about this issue, north korea, and healtcare all at the same time without blood pouring from my ears... We are really suposed to expect less from the President of the United States?
72
Dan's relationship has no "sanctity", 70, not that anybody's does.

Yeah he and his partner have an open relationship with multiple sexual partners, I've seen it referenced here.

What is Dan fighting for, anyway?
73
@71:

Think about it, yes. Spend your capital on it, up to Obama, and think for a second about the many constituencies involved. I'm OK with the answer being "working on it at an admittedly slow pace, and keep your panties from getting in a bunch."
74
@71 Jesus Christ I hope that they don't pay you to teach. When you talk about purely LEGAL issues like DOMA and DADT, then you have to support them with LEGAL arguments. Saber rattling to the base is all well and good, but it don't mean shit if you can't get any recognized rights. It takes Lawyers to get that done, not drama queen bloggers.
75
The always excellent Alex Blaze at bilerico:

"I think a lot of people thought this would be much easier than it's turning out to be. Maybe for good reason. The majority of people angry now are white, and white American's knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is generally drawn from high school American history, where we learn that Rosa Parks was a lady who got tired of racism, so the movement started, African Americans marched for several years, a few laws were passed, and then everything was fine."
76
"These discussions of the Boies and Olson case have me thinking that some of these people thought that Loving vs. VA was just a case that appeared out of nowhere, made it to the supreme court, and then convinced the justices there that the plaintiffs were being denied their rights. But that's not the way it went down. Many states had to first overturn their bans on interracial marriage. The case was argued in front of two left-leaning courts (ours now can't legitimately be called lefty) because it failed the first time. That and the fact that African Americans were already a suspect class (LGBT people aren't) all helped move things along. Comparing the Boies and Olson case to Loving only betrays a lack of understanding of the circumstances of that case."
77
Dan don't you and your boyfriend have an "open" relationship...?

Why is this whole marriage thing so important to you if you don't believe in monogamy or, like, a special and protected bond between you and another?

I mean, if you fuck other guys, you cant possibly be all offended that you can't personally be married to a single one.

It just doesn't add up.
78
@76:

Oh dear. Teh gays are going to be all up on your ass. We don't care about circumstance, only privilege.
79
To those of you who think this is a back-burner issue, would you feel the same way were we still denying the women the right to vote? Would Climate Change trump that? Would healthcare reform trump school integration? Would it be more important to fix the economy or to allow Rosa Parks to sit anywhere she damn well pleases when she boards a bus?

For me? If my brothers and sisters are not considered full and equal partners in our communities, you can take all of your tax breaks and environmental issues and war mongering and go fuck yourself. There seems to be this notion that equality for gays and lesbians is a designer issue that's only cool to talk about at cocktail parties--it's not a real issue--I mean, not like those kids who are fighting for their rights in Iran--gays are just decorations here.

Bullshit. Why AREN'T WE MARCHING IN THE STREETS like the kids in Iran?

Seriously...appeasing insurance companies to fix healthcare trumps the basic personal rights of gays to choose to whom they'd like to be legally wed? If that's the Universe you live in, then fuck you too.
80
Timothy: when making headway on each issue you list INCLUDING gay rights is jeopardized by a skipping 2 steps ahead and falling 20 back (losing the House, Senate, and Presidency) for years, YES. Fuck you too.

81
All the more reason it's time for universal coverage – tall, short, thin, thick, blue, yellow, green, etc. - ASAP
82
Wow. leave it to Democrats to cut off their nose to spite their face.

to #1-80:
Circular firing squad is circular firing squad.
83
@79:

As soon as your hipster ass is in the same danger and fighting for the same freedoms as the "kids in Iran" I will take you seriously.
84
Doctor Professor and Yo.

Your arguments are pathetic and useless. Civil rights are just as important as healthcare, the economy, crazy rouge nations, and whatever the fuck else you can come up with to justify your shit-stain of an opinion. Why, you ask? because civil rights affect the ability of people to lead decent, dignified lives. If YOU couldn't get married to the person you loved, if YOU got kicked out of the military because of what you are, DADT and DOMA would be the only thing you cared about.

Dan Savage and the other commenters on this blog are not being unreasonable. Obama promised the gays that he would repeal DADT and DOMA, and he didn't qualify that statement by saying he would have to cure all the world's problems first. Healthcare, the economy, and national security are ALWAYS going to be issues; you're asking the gays to wait in a line that's never going to get any shorter.

Maybe you're right, and President Obama can do nothing without congress on his side. That's fine, the gay community was never expecting a quick reversal; but when that brief hit the press people like Dan freaked because they realized Obama has no intention of fulfilling his campaign promises, not even if he spends the next 100 years in office!
85
@84:

Of course he didn't promise to cure the world's problems first, but that doesn't eliminate the need to address them. And no, I have no problem asking teh gays to wait in line just like EVERYBODY ELSE.
86
I can't wait till Dan bumps/reposts this to showcase how many comments and hits it got!!!

Us: give us rights, please
Dan: Give me money, please! CHA-CHING!!!! NEW DRAMA! YESSSSSSSSSSS

87
@83 Yo...you have no idea of which you speak.
88
@84:

Really? Your right to fuck, to marry, to die with whomever you please is more important than any other right? Um, hell no.
89
@87:

Great point. Kthnxbai.
90
@80 Keyboard Gat...your comments @77 reveal your stunning lack of skills in critical analysis. So, your opinions on the manner in which basic human and civil rights should and will move forward as though it's all aligned through some grand teleological plan is laughable. The fight for rights is now and always has been messy.

While there was a time when conservative pacing of this issue made strategic sense, we have entered a whole new era more akin to a model of progression like Kuhn's analysis of scientific revolution: the damn finally gives way in rapid demise...it is not dismantled one stone at a time to the last stone.

As we get nearer the end of this scourge of discrimination, the urgency increases, and the decision to NOT fight tooth and nail for it will be measured as evil.
91
@90:

You need psychological help for your grandiose fantasies. The level of discrimination involved with this issue pales in comparison with the battles our forebears fought.
92
We all appreciate angry night owls, but go to bed already

hugs
93
@88 Yo...name a right that trumps those things? Perhaps the right to breathe? To eat? To sleep? But, once we exhaust Maslow's primary needs, the right to choose your family and sex partners is pretty fucking important.

In fact, if we denied this right to straight people, I'm guessing you'd agree that it's pretty fucking important.
94
stupid faggots, marriage is for people with morals.
95
@90...give me an example. And, by doing so, you'll merely confirm your homophobia. I mean, women's rights are more important than african american rights which are more important than gay rights.

Amirite?
96
@93:

Speech, religion, privacy, self-determination. If you're not on E, they're all kinda big.
97
@95:

I'll go ahead and say it. It's easier to discriminate against African Americans and women because I can easily tell them apart from white males. Gays, not so easy. So no, your dilemma does not compare.
98
@93...I agree they're all big...but that's not what you said. You said they were more important. And, speech, privacy and self-determination are absolutely at play in fighting for your right to fuck and marry whomever you choose. These notions are not some appendage to rights, they are core, fundamental rights, none of which are more important than the other. They are all co-equal.

Basic and fundamental rights don't exist on a hierarchy. They exist, period.
99
Dan Savage: You are just a liar plain and simple. See, that is an example of a TRUE fucking headline. The way you label Obama is just wrong. Get some fucking integrity.
100
@98:

You're not talking about basic and fundamental rights, at least not in this country. And while the rights I mentioned are related, they aren't entirely the same.
101
I dare you both to do a double shot of Jagermeister and play spin the bottle.

The sexual tension is off the charts – get a room already and have some good ole fashioned angry sex and get it over with.