Timothy, I return you to the absurdity of comparing this issue to those that inspire Iranians to march in the streets. Srsly WTF.

@97 Yo...now you're just being silly.

A gay man denied his right to make medical decisions with and for his partner has been equally discriminated against compared to a black man denied the same rights relative to his white wife.

Discrimination happens to individuals, one at a time. Each time it happens it is morally evil.

@103:

Not at issue, already in place. Next!

Don't know if anyone will read a comment so far down the page, but CNN.com's story on this memorandum claims that it will grant health care benefits. Now is probably the time to spam their "error correction" site and ask them to fix the error.

The "contact us" link is
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom/
(choose the link for "Editorial")

And since it will ask you the link for the article, that is:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/o…

Yo: I don't know whether or not you read newspapers or watch TV, but if you did, you'd know that Don't Ask Don't Tell has been constantly in the news since the US went to war in 2002. There has been a continuous and public debate about whether or not it's a good idea to fire otherwise capable soldiers during wartime, culminating in Congressional hearings last year. The plain fact is that over 70% of Americans, and over 90% of Americans aged 18-35 (you know, people of recruitment age), want DADT repealed.

I was in the Infantry from '00 to '04. I served with gay people. It's not an issue.
Keeping the policy in place actively harms our national security (c.f. translators, fighter pilots and other mission critical troops). Repeal will not hurt recruitment, nor will it cause discipline problems (DADT is itself an administrative hassle for commanders). And repeal has broad popular support.
So let Fox News bray about it. They will only marginalize themselves further.

The legislation required to give us health insurance and other benefits has already been introduced in both the House and the Senate. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?…

I really don't know why Obama's signing anything at this point if it doesn't give us what the bill would give. My partner already has the right to inherit my thrift savings plan, final paycheck, life insurance, and get a survivor annuity if I die after I retire. The only thing we really need for her is health insurance. (since for now social security is not an option, since it would have to be for everyone, not just feds)

Dan- Don't back off or back down, please. Your passion is contagious and will someday move mountains.

I love that whenever the gays protest loudly we're told to shut up and wait because, gosh darn it, there are so many *other* issues that have to be squared away first.

It's as if people don't realize that LGBT folks KNOW there are lots of important issues, but our lives are important, too. I appreciate the work President Obama is doing on a whole host of issues. I just think he's been piss poor on LGBT issues, and he's the one who told him to hold his feet to the fire. Those who tell us to wait illustrate perfectly why we have to fight for ourselves. Nobody else will.

I'm a little confused now...CNN is reporting this morning that the memorandum WILL include health care. Was this a last minute change or did CNN get it wrong?

(Which would not be so surprising, as this is the same CNN that chose to basically ignore what is going on in Tehran.)

111, I think that the Obama admin is making it up as they go along. It was a hastily made announcement, and even they didn't know the details. This is basically an emergency plan to save an upcoming GBLT fund raiser. They want our money, and out votes now, but they want to hold off on giving us equal rights until...to be determined.

29, "Throughout the world, racial barriers began dropping more than 100 years before we integrated our armed forces"

Huh? 100 years before we integrated our armed forces, slavery was still legal. And most of the legal racial barriers were between 30-60 years old in the late 40s. Blacks in the south had far more rights in the 1880s than they did in the 1940s. YOu don't know what you're talking about. Racial barriers coming down, my ass.

Dan is absolutely right: this is insulting. Hundreds of corporations in every state in the union figured out how to provide employee benefits for gay partners decades ago; now it's too hard for the feds? That's RIDICULOUS. And to splash out this restriction in a press announcement that was supposed to be GOOD news is unbelievable.

Thank you for all you do, Dan. Keep pushing, keep informing. I appreciate it.

@110, protest all you the fuck you want, and don't shut up, but do it with some intellectual honesty, Obama favors a legislative solution, and rightfully so as that will be the only way for it to be durable and lasting. Everyone seems to want to avoid the hard work of petitioning congress and would rather have Obama act on his own, which is the same type of executive branch power grab that Bush used numerous times to horrible effect.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?…|/bss/111search.html|

bad link in earlier post

You're right YAANWFWODUYA, and I'm sure we're all very sorry. You don't come off as a screaming racist homobigot douche at all.

42 Nothing he does is ever good enough for them. That's why like you I believe that the best thing he can do is just to back away from these issues, all he's doing is giving the republicans something to rally up their base, all he's gaining is a possible headache from involving himself in this.

Loveschild: Except for the fact that popular support for repealing DADT is higher than the President's own approval ratings.
One of the best things he can do is push Congress to repeal DADT. This will strengthen the military in a time of war and fulfill his campaign promise. It might even boost his popularity and political capital for the health care fight.

119, Correction: Nothing less that what Obama promised to do while collecting our money, and votes is good enough for us. The republican base already hates Obama, ignoring gay rights isn't going to change that, nor will honoring his campaign promises on gay rights. Obama will never get the right wing base to support or vote for him, and he's losing our votes and support as well.

The Fierce Fraud is at it again.

My partner of 24yrs and I are constituents of Jared Polis. We've both informed him that he will no longer receive our votes should he participate in the LGBT DNC fundraiser.

"A presidential directive has the same substantive legal effect as an executive order. It is the substance of the presidential action that is determinative, not the form of the document conveying that action.

Both an executive order and a presidential directive remain effective upon a change in administration, unless otherwise specified in the document, and both continue to be effective until subsequent presidential action is taken."

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/predirective.ht…

Dan is being intellectually dishonest and unreasonable. But you know what? It's not the moderates with well-reasoned arguments who set the stage for social change, its the people screaming at the top of their lungs and demanding their and their rights. So, Dan, even though I think you're full of shit, keep it up. Its more important to demand attention for your cause than to be 100% accurate.

The public support might be there, but the Congress is NOT on board. This is because everyone is letting the President take the flack for this, hoping he'll put out some temporary measure and that the following president will do the same. We're letting Congress off the hook farrrrrrrr too easily.

We have under 40 votes in the Senate, mainly because it's not a top-of-mind issue. They will vote it out of committee until their priorities are met. They will not bring it to the floor. Not until everyone has been personally contacted and talked to over and over again.

Everyone, absolutely EVERYONE needs to get this issue sent along to their Senators, and even their reps. Tell them to draft bill after bill that simply and succinctly repeals DOMA and attach it to the healthcare bill. It is indeed an issue of relevence to healthcare and would certainly garner the votes needed in that respect.

Dan, thanks for your righteous anger and your eloquence. You're speaking for a lot of us who are truly disappointed - and pissed.

@123 don't leave me hanging! what did he say?

Wow. It's almost poetic how two-faced and calculated and totally disingenuous the Obama administration is being towards our gay community.

I just sent my Obama t-shirt to the White House with a handwritten letter saying that I won't be a volunteer, ATM, or a billboard for anyone who isn't an advocate for me. Anyone else with Obama-gear that they don't feel like wearing right now?

@130...that's a great idea. I saw mine peeking up from the bottom of a dresser drawer this morning and felt like I'd been kicked in the gut thinking about wearing it on election night and literally weeping with joy.

@128
We've received a thank you for your input and we'll receive a response soon.

Either way, he knows our position and what we'll do, or should I say--what we won't do.

He's also politically close to a relative of mine. I sent her a copy of my message to him as well.

@ 119,

As long as you continue refering to "them", and espousing that they won't find that they are better "tolerated" with the GOP, and their struggles are "not legitimate and shouldn't be confused with legitimate fights for freedoms". Descriptions you have used over the last two days, you will continue to find your self proclaimed partial support viewed with scepticism. Will you really continue to discuss your gay Christian brothers and sisters as lesser beings as "them", "tolerated", and their stuggle to be treated with full equality under the laws of this country as an "illegitimate" fight? Did Christ's death on the cross not remove all separation between us and them for those who have accepted salvation in Him? Is it so terribly wrong to want to be judged by the content of one's character not by one's sexual orientation?

Dan, I thought you said this point was "trivial" ("2% of 3%...")?

Yo. @88,

I never said that gay rights where more important than any other rights, I said they are just as important.

I think that's your problem. You see people fighting for their rights and you think to yourself "but what about me!"

@ 133 - Wow - just WOW. You are so fantastic~

A couple of people have said in the thread above: Dan, why do you care so much about getting married, when you & your partner are not monogamous? Not the issue. I happen to be in a longterm monogamous thing, 'cause that's what works for the two of us. But I have plenty of straight & gay pals, together way longer then me & my S.O., who have open relationships: some even like playing with others together.

& I recently attended a wedding of two of them. & it was so deeply moving. The groom gave this jolt of joy, of happiness, when he saw the bride standing there, just for him.

Could I do what they do or have what they have? I dunno, maybe in a different relationship. Maybe not. But either way, it doesn't mean I get to judge what my newlywed pals or doing..or my gay pals or doing..or even newlyweds or gays I happen to think are bitches..;)

Although monogamy is the standard operating procedure for what we're taught about relationships growing up, different things work for different couples. That doesn't mean that the love they feel for each other is any less real.

It's a civil rights thing. Get with the times.

Just wanted to say thanks, Dan! Nothing to add, but I sure sppreciate you keeping the pressure on.

the old "sorry disenfranchised folks, we have more important things to deal with than your civil rights" excuse SHOULD have died out 45 years ago, but I see that the eternally lame are still trotting it out...Guess what? The "disenfranchised" are fucking sick and tired of being doormats/cashcows for the Democratic Party. Yes, we want banking reform; yes, we want an end to "The War on Terror"; yes, we want health care reform. But the tired old refrain that queer civil rights isn't worthy to be on the administration's plate with the other 125 things on the menu/agenda is a slap in the face to the millions of queer Americans who support the Democrats and Obama in particular.

keep it up, Dan.

Whaaaaaat a cunt.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between the two, including the (false) assumption that a Presidential Directive expires when the President leaves office.

Here is the information:

LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS OF A PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE, AS COMPARED TO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

A presidential directive has the same substantive legal effect as an executive order. It is the substance of the presidential action that is determinative, not the form of the document conveying that action.

Both an executive order and a presidential directive remain effective upon a change in administration, unless otherwise specified in the document, and both continue to be effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.

January 29, 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COUNSEL COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive. As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order. We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.

We are aware of no basis for drawing a distinction as to the legal effectiveness of a presidential action based on the form or caption of the written document through which that action is conveyed. Cf. Memorandum for Harold Judson, Assistant Solicitor General, from William H. Rose, Re: Statement of Policy Regarding Certain Strategic Materials (Aug. 28, 1945) (concluding that a letter from President Roosevelt stating the government's policy "constitute[d] a Presidential directive having the force and effect of law," notwithstanding its informality of form). It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner. This principle plainly extends to the legal effectiveness of a document styled as a "presidential directive."

I'd still like to know when there ever was a time that international conflict and economic problems didn't exist in this country. Anybody? Or when we can expect such a utopia so that Obama can finally get down to the petty matter of his citizens' civil rights. Or how it's considered more realistic to wait for world peace and universal prosperity than it is to expect Obama to put gay rights back on his agenda, along with these other "larger" issues.

Or which of the other landmark progressions in civil rights were the only agenda left on the table when they were made. Let's see... during 1954 (Brown v. Board), how well were we getting along with the Soviet Union? Why did Eisenhower bother to send national guard troops to a high school in Little Rock in 1957 when communist guerillas were clearly raising a ruckus in Vietnam? Why did Kennedy send a bunch of troops into Mississippi to support integration there so soon after Bay of Pigs, and during the same year as the Cuban Missile Crisis (and with the Air Force busy spraying agent orange in 'Nam)? Why did Congress bother to pass the Voting Rights Act at a time when we officially had ground troops in Vietnam? How were things with Vietnam, Russia, and Cuba in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed? Just a walk in the park, right?

This is actually kind of fun. You guys should try it. Just google up timelines for the Civil Rights Movement, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and any other historical event you'd like, and see how free and clear the political horizon was when various leaders of US government found the time to get around to petty little matters like civil rights.

Also, what do you people think, anyway; that some window of opportunity will open up while the President is "distracted" signing a DADT repeal, giving Al Qaeda just enough time for another attack? Or that he'll get so preoccupied with urging Congress to repeal DOMA that the economic crisis will just slip his mind and go unaddressed?

This has to be the 80th time I've said this on slog: we're not trying to get Obama to devote his entire presidency to gay rights. We will not hold it against him if whatever efforts he makes on our part end up taking time due to logistic reasons, so long as he actually MAKES some real effort. We just want more than a couple empty gestures and a bunch of active opposition from his administration, which won't interfere with his ability to handle other issues. This is not unreasonable, and anyone who has ever had their civil rights put at risk knows it. Anyone who hasn't had their civil rights limited by the state can stop pretending to be experts on how someone should react to it. The ironic thing is that I'm sure people like "Yo" would take to the streets immediately with passionate tears in their eyes if Obama banned xbox and hot pockets.

Ignoring gay rights is taking up effort and political capital on Obama's part, you know. He's having to determine where the gay community's breaking point is, he's having to figure out how to save face with the gays with hurried memos giving their partners free Uhaul rentals, and he's going to have to justify himself for that DOMA brief (not to mention his DOJ's effort spent writing that brief in the first place). If he'd put that same amount of "distracting" effort into working towards repeals of DOMA, DADT, the HIV travel ban, etc, then he could be halfway towards accomplishing these things by now.

As far as political capital goes, he never had any to lose with the right wing. He could morph into Ronald Reagan himself and drop all taxes and make guns mandatory and reinstate Jim Crow and declare war on France, and the ever-weakening republicans would still call him a pinko socialist. The political capital that he's losing is that which he holds with the gay community who supported him.

No, really, the entire world was at perfect peace during the Civil Rights Movement! Why, we were just exchanging RECIPES with Vietnam and the Soviet Union! Burgers for Borscht! French Fries for Pho! It would have been very bad form for all those African Americans to push for their civil rights if the US had any other concerns at all at the time. How selfish that would have been! How unrealistic! How distracting!

That's the lesson I learned from the Civil Rights Movement, anyway.

@143 for the SLOG Day of Inaction and Much Whining win.

Yeah, now that ECB is gone we str8s are the new minority.

If you want the laws changed then you need to hound your congress critters. They write laws, not the POTUS. Otherwise, complaining about President Obama doesn't amount to anything more than venting. Besides, I don't recall hearing him say he wouldn't sign legislation that addressed gay rights issues. Anyone wanna bet he'd not only sign a bill that survived Congress but make a press circus out of it?

That said, it would be nice to see President Obama use his bully pulpit to speak out for gay marriage. After he's done dealing with the wrecked economy, two unwinnable wars, a possible revolution in Iran, the thousand-fold retaliation of North Korea, the growing threat of domestic terrorism and ending the 50-odd year stalemate on health care reform, that is. Personally, I'm willing to wait a little bit. Hell, I'm still waiting for him to put our previous POTUS in an orange prison jumpsuit. I guess there's only so much multitasking President Obama is going to engage in...

That said, I do realize I'm not the one whose right to marry isn't being stepped on. The perspective is undoubtedly different when you're on the receiving end of discriminatory practices. So start hounding your congress critters!!!!

That said, I like the phrase "that said,"...

@141 yeah Liz, I saw that too, but Dan and other bloggers refuse to stop repeating this innacuracy. it's becoming disinformation as opposed to misinformation.

whatevea.

144:

"Hey, everyone, look how little I care!"

** posts about it **

** is unaware of the irony **

I still find myself lusting for a way to filter bullshit posts better. Guess I have to improve my skimming skills. Meanwhile, big kudos to Eva for spelling out an important point for some simpletons here. Now for my two cents -

Anyone who still receives Obama spam, unsubscribing is cool! They give you a box to say why you are doing so. It's less meaningful for me because I never gave money during the election (dirt poor at the time), but it did give me a forum for saying something. Have at it, y'all.

As much as he's been sucking corporate ass and letting industry insiders write his policies on the economy, environment and such, the "he has bigger fish to fry" argument holds no weight. He's shown himself to be a liar and a balless political hack, over and over again. Fuck him straight in his lying ass, thank you.
-

if i hear this 'there are more important issues' one more time my head will explode. what is 'more important' than the equality under the law guaranteed by our constitution ? there will ALWAYS be more important issues to people who don't care about your rights. the struggle for gay equality has gone on for decades. it didn't start with barack and it will not end with barack. if he thinks he can use us for money and votes and then stab us in the back in the courts, or placate us with this sham memorandum, he is mistaken.

Wow - I go on vacation for 2 weeks, and a whole shit-storm of "stuff" happens.

Welcome home, Frau Blucher.