Look at him.
On second thought, I realize that it's wrong to judge a man's sexual orientation simply on the way he dresses.
Read the rest of this post...
More about: DADT | DOMA | ENDA | Immigration | Marriage | 2012 Elections
Follow @AmericablogGay
Friday, June 11, 2010
Uh huh, he's not gay
From Gawker we learn what homophobe boy-toy GOP Congressman Aaron Schock wore to the White House picnic. Mind you, Schock is from northern Illinois. And as a Chicagoan, let me tell you right now, no straight guy back home would ever - ever - be caught dead in that outfit in a million years. I mean, seriously, look at him. And he has the nerve to vote against the DADT compromise.
Look at him.
On second thought, I realize that it's wrong to judge a man's sexual orientation simply on the way he dresses.
Read the rest of this post...
Look at him.
On second thought, I realize that it's wrong to judge a man's sexual orientation simply on the way he dresses.
Read the rest of this post...
HRC's Solmonese says Obama is the best pro-gay president EVER
Though I was surprised to find that Solmonese is far from the biggest suck-up in the article. That's quite possibly a first.
The story by the Blade's Chris Johnson is about how the President has fared on gay issues to date. And save Evan Wolfson and Carl Schmid, the article is filled with gay organizations that still think it's in our best interest to kiss the proverbial presidential ass. After a year and a half of disappointments - two and a half really, if you count Donnie McClurkin - you'd think our leaders would have learned that playing nice with this President gets your absolutely nowhere. The Obama White House respects its enemies. It respects people who beat them up, who take them on, who threaten to throw a wrench in their agenda, who try to kick them out of office. They neither respect, nor much care for, anyone willing to call themselves "friend." It's a sad truth far too many allies, foreign and domestic, have learned.
I'll be writing much more over the next month about how much Pride we should have in President Obama, but for now, let's discuss Solmonese's point about Obama being the most pro-gay president ever.
Well duh. The only real comparison is to Bill Clinton. And I would hope that twenty years later a Democratic president might just be a tad more pro-gay than the guy we elected in 1992. This "best ever" game that HRC, and other apologists, keep playing is offensive, and it's meant to deceive. We live in a world where gays and lesbians (and bis and trans) are more accepted than they were ten years ago, or fifty years ago. So of course our president is more likely to be more pro-gay today than two decades ago. What matters is not whether Obama is better than Clinton - and it's not terribly clear that he is - rather, whether Obama is as pro-gay as he should be for the times. And that is not clear at all.
70% to 80% of the public, in poll after poll, support the full and immediate repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The President, however, is fighting for piecemeal legislation that won't guarantee repeal ever. And note how the White House has never said, even once, when they plan to actually repeal DADT, to actually lift the ban entirely. It's hardly a profile in courage to play this fearful with something so popular with the American public.
It's a lot easier for Barack Obama to be pro-gay today than it was for Bill Clinton twenty years ago. Has Barack Obama really caught up with the times? I don't think so. I think he's still living in 1992. And so is the Democratic party. So he, and they, think that whatever would have placated us in 1992 - OMG he spoke at our dinner! - will make us happy in 2010. It won't, and it shouldn't. When I was a kid all I wanted out of life was a Major Matt Mason doll. Now I'm a bit older and I expect a bit more. We all do.
(NB I didn't touch on the other false comparison that HRC, the DNC and others like to raise. Namely, that Obama is better than McCain or Palin or any other possible Republican president. Yes, and I'm better husband material than the guy who beats you. Just because he beats you, and I don't, that hardly makes me a keeper. Democrats need to stop striving to be marginally better than truly awful human beings. We voted for better, they promised better, and we expect better.) Read the rest of this post...
The story by the Blade's Chris Johnson is about how the President has fared on gay issues to date. And save Evan Wolfson and Carl Schmid, the article is filled with gay organizations that still think it's in our best interest to kiss the proverbial presidential ass. After a year and a half of disappointments - two and a half really, if you count Donnie McClurkin - you'd think our leaders would have learned that playing nice with this President gets your absolutely nowhere. The Obama White House respects its enemies. It respects people who beat them up, who take them on, who threaten to throw a wrench in their agenda, who try to kick them out of office. They neither respect, nor much care for, anyone willing to call themselves "friend." It's a sad truth far too many allies, foreign and domestic, have learned.
I'll be writing much more over the next month about how much Pride we should have in President Obama, but for now, let's discuss Solmonese's point about Obama being the most pro-gay president ever.
Well duh. The only real comparison is to Bill Clinton. And I would hope that twenty years later a Democratic president might just be a tad more pro-gay than the guy we elected in 1992. This "best ever" game that HRC, and other apologists, keep playing is offensive, and it's meant to deceive. We live in a world where gays and lesbians (and bis and trans) are more accepted than they were ten years ago, or fifty years ago. So of course our president is more likely to be more pro-gay today than two decades ago. What matters is not whether Obama is better than Clinton - and it's not terribly clear that he is - rather, whether Obama is as pro-gay as he should be for the times. And that is not clear at all.
70% to 80% of the public, in poll after poll, support the full and immediate repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The President, however, is fighting for piecemeal legislation that won't guarantee repeal ever. And note how the White House has never said, even once, when they plan to actually repeal DADT, to actually lift the ban entirely. It's hardly a profile in courage to play this fearful with something so popular with the American public.
It's a lot easier for Barack Obama to be pro-gay today than it was for Bill Clinton twenty years ago. Has Barack Obama really caught up with the times? I don't think so. I think he's still living in 1992. And so is the Democratic party. So he, and they, think that whatever would have placated us in 1992 - OMG he spoke at our dinner! - will make us happy in 2010. It won't, and it shouldn't. When I was a kid all I wanted out of life was a Major Matt Mason doll. Now I'm a bit older and I expect a bit more. We all do.
(NB I didn't touch on the other false comparison that HRC, the DNC and others like to raise. Namely, that Obama is better than McCain or Palin or any other possible Republican president. Yes, and I'm better husband material than the guy who beats you. Just because he beats you, and I don't, that hardly makes me a keeper. Democrats need to stop striving to be marginally better than truly awful human beings. We voted for better, they promised better, and we expect better.) Read the rest of this post...
The Pentagon Working Group on DADT apparently only wants to hear from straight soldiers
Surprise. Clarknt67 at DailyKos has screen captures of the online survey the working group is doing of the troops. When you read the survey it becomes clear that no gay service member would dare respond to the thing. It doesn't guarantee confidentiality, for starters. But have no fear, the Pentagon has promised an alternate way that service members can share their opinions confidentially. They just haven't gotten to it yet. Uh huh.
Read the rest of this post...
Sorry, CAP - courts matter
We've been pretty critical of the Center for American Progress' Winnie Stachelberg for claiming credit for the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise that lots of people in the community hate. So we expected to catch some flak from CAP. The only problem is, their flak is wrong.
CAP, via their blog ThinkProgress, is now arguing - in response to our earlier post - that it's not just okay, but downright welcome, that President Obama's Justice Department is trying to get a case challenging the constitutionality of DADT basically thrown out of court. (The administration is arguing, laughably, that the prospect of Congress passing this DADT compromise - a compromise that does not in any way guarantee repeal of the anti-gay law - means the courts should never rule on DADT ever again.)
As you know, the Obama administration routinely fights against gay civil rights progress in the courts, defending DADT and DOMA, even though they promised to fight against both, and even though they aren't required to defend those laws at all. Now, in their ongoing effort to out-Wallace George Wallace in the courts, the administration is arguing that courts shouldn't even consider DADT challenges since Congress might, some day, pass something, even though it isn't really a repeal. And CAP is, oddly, agreeing with them.
Now, why would CAP take a position that one might expect from the Reagan Justice Department? Here's their argument:
1. The notion that the gay community should give up using the courts to fight for our civil rights is wrong, and dangerous. Look at the advances the black community made in the courts (Brown v Board and Loving v Virginia come to mind, but there are more). You don't just write off legal action as no longer a welcome option because a loss might affect our legislative agenda. That's always a possibility, for every civil rights community. So CAP is now taking the position that civil rights advocates shouldn't go the courts, ever?
2. But more specifically, CAP is now worried that a judge might rule that DADT is constitutional. Yeah, so what? Do you really think any of our allies in Congress are going to change their minds because a court says DADT is constitutional? Courts have been saying that for nearly two decades. The bad guys will always try to use it, and everything else, to justify their bigotry, that isn't new. But the bad guys are already against us - a court case won't change that, and our guys are already on our side, and again, a court case won't change anything in terms of their support for us in Congress.
3. But CAP's oddest, and most dangerous, argument is the last one: That DOD won't change its mind simply because a court rules DADT unconstitutional.
Really?
CAP believes that the Pentagon would openly defy a court order striking down DADT as unconstitutional? Well that's rather scary. And it's the kind of thing that comes awfully close to a coup d'état. To blithely suggest that that's okay, and to be expected, and accepted, is odd to say the least. Especially from a think tank closely allied with the Obama White House. Read the rest of this post...
CAP, via their blog ThinkProgress, is now arguing - in response to our earlier post - that it's not just okay, but downright welcome, that President Obama's Justice Department is trying to get a case challenging the constitutionality of DADT basically thrown out of court. (The administration is arguing, laughably, that the prospect of Congress passing this DADT compromise - a compromise that does not in any way guarantee repeal of the anti-gay law - means the courts should never rule on DADT ever again.)
As you know, the Obama administration routinely fights against gay civil rights progress in the courts, defending DADT and DOMA, even though they promised to fight against both, and even though they aren't required to defend those laws at all. Now, in their ongoing effort to out-Wallace George Wallace in the courts, the administration is arguing that courts shouldn't even consider DADT challenges since Congress might, some day, pass something, even though it isn't really a repeal. And CAP is, oddly, agreeing with them.
Now, why would CAP take a position that one might expect from the Reagan Justice Department? Here's their argument:
I’ll grant that repeal certainly isn’t final and faces some substantial hurdles in the Senate, but those obstacles are hills compared to the mountains we’ll have to climb if the court upholds the policy. A court decision supporting the ban could energize not only conservative advocates but also the men of the military who have publicly embraced the President’s decision as a general concept, but seem very uncertain about the prospect of actually regulating DADT out of existence.A few problems with that line of argumentation.
It’s those men — Gates, Mullen and the Chiefs — who are responsible for actually changing the military’s regulations in this regard and (given their already considerable foot dragging on the issue) it’s just not believable to say that a court decision will spring them into action.
1. The notion that the gay community should give up using the courts to fight for our civil rights is wrong, and dangerous. Look at the advances the black community made in the courts (Brown v Board and Loving v Virginia come to mind, but there are more). You don't just write off legal action as no longer a welcome option because a loss might affect our legislative agenda. That's always a possibility, for every civil rights community. So CAP is now taking the position that civil rights advocates shouldn't go the courts, ever?
2. But more specifically, CAP is now worried that a judge might rule that DADT is constitutional. Yeah, so what? Do you really think any of our allies in Congress are going to change their minds because a court says DADT is constitutional? Courts have been saying that for nearly two decades. The bad guys will always try to use it, and everything else, to justify their bigotry, that isn't new. But the bad guys are already against us - a court case won't change that, and our guys are already on our side, and again, a court case won't change anything in terms of their support for us in Congress.
3. But CAP's oddest, and most dangerous, argument is the last one: That DOD won't change its mind simply because a court rules DADT unconstitutional.
Really?
CAP believes that the Pentagon would openly defy a court order striking down DADT as unconstitutional? Well that's rather scary. And it's the kind of thing that comes awfully close to a coup d'état. To blithely suggest that that's okay, and to be expected, and accepted, is odd to say the least. Especially from a think tank closely allied with the Obama White House. Read the rest of this post...
Another GOP operative -- who knows an awful lot about 'the gay' -- gay-baits a Dem., and screws up
Does Josh Bill know Andy Seré? Because these two GOP operatives share an obsession with the gay. Sean at FiredUp Missouri tipped us off about the latest round of gay-baiting coming from the GOPers.
This week, Bill, a Missouri GOP operative, wrote a letter to the Southeast Missourian attacking Tommy Sowers, who running for Congress against Bill's old boss's wife, Jo Ann Emerson. Actually, turns out he paid to have this letter published. I think Bill was trying to intimate that Sowers, might be gay. This is how the publisher of the Southeast Missourian, John Rust, described it:
But as was the case with Seré, this episode says way more about Bill than his intended "target." Think about it. He knew about a site called "Fun Maps," which, according to Bill, is "a service 'Mapping the gay & lesbian world.' In other words, it helps gays and lesbians find each other in our nation's capital." Interesting. I'm gay. I've lived in DC for almost 17 years. I've never heard of "Fun Maps." How intriguing that Mr. Bill, who used to live in DC, knows all about an obscure site that helps gays and lesbians find each other. How did Bill stumble upon a gay site like that? Did Andy give him some pointers?
As for the substance of the gay innuendo, it's laughable. Sowers had a fundraiser, co-hosted by the founder of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, at a DC restaurant called Local 16. Bill wants people in Southeast Missouri to think that Local 16 is a gay club. It's not. It's a restaurant, and a straight one at that. Do some gay people go there? I'm sure they do. Some gay people probably work at the NRCC too -- that doesn't make it a gay club. Bill goes on to claim that the restaurant's location, on DC's U Street corridor, is a notoriously gay venue. Uh, no it's not. To the best of my recollection, there isn't a single gay establishment on the one mile-plus stretch of U Sreet. It's all restaurants and straight bars and clubs. (UPDATE: Adam Bink informed me that there is a gay bar, Nellie's at 9th and U. Mr. Bill probably knew that.)
What is queer, however, is how these GOPers who try to convey innuendo about other people being gay seem to know an amazing amount about the gay community? Funny, huh? And, it's not like the path of homophobes isn't filled with homos. Think Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, George Rekers.
One thing this episode shows: Emerson must be really worried about her opponent, Tommy Sowers.
And, I'm sure the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud are going to fight back against the gay-baiting by their fellow GOPers. I'm sure. Read the rest of this post...
This week, Bill, a Missouri GOP operative, wrote a letter to the Southeast Missourian attacking Tommy Sowers, who running for Congress against Bill's old boss's wife, Jo Ann Emerson. Actually, turns out he paid to have this letter published. I think Bill was trying to intimate that Sowers, might be gay. This is how the publisher of the Southeast Missourian, John Rust, described it:
This week, people close to the Emerson campaign crossed the line in mudslinging too. In a paid election letter to this newspaper, a writer who once worked for Emerson's husband called into question Sowers' sexuality. The innuendo used was repugnant.Now, this is the classic version of a GOP dirty trick. Karl Rove, whose own stepfather was gay, used it all the time. And, the House Republican campaign committee's press secretary, Andy "GOB Festival" Seré, tried it earlier this year in another race.
But as was the case with Seré, this episode says way more about Bill than his intended "target." Think about it. He knew about a site called "Fun Maps," which, according to Bill, is "a service 'Mapping the gay & lesbian world.' In other words, it helps gays and lesbians find each other in our nation's capital." Interesting. I'm gay. I've lived in DC for almost 17 years. I've never heard of "Fun Maps." How intriguing that Mr. Bill, who used to live in DC, knows all about an obscure site that helps gays and lesbians find each other. How did Bill stumble upon a gay site like that? Did Andy give him some pointers?
As for the substance of the gay innuendo, it's laughable. Sowers had a fundraiser, co-hosted by the founder of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, at a DC restaurant called Local 16. Bill wants people in Southeast Missouri to think that Local 16 is a gay club. It's not. It's a restaurant, and a straight one at that. Do some gay people go there? I'm sure they do. Some gay people probably work at the NRCC too -- that doesn't make it a gay club. Bill goes on to claim that the restaurant's location, on DC's U Street corridor, is a notoriously gay venue. Uh, no it's not. To the best of my recollection, there isn't a single gay establishment on the one mile-plus stretch of U Sreet. It's all restaurants and straight bars and clubs. (UPDATE: Adam Bink informed me that there is a gay bar, Nellie's at 9th and U. Mr. Bill probably knew that.)
What is queer, however, is how these GOPers who try to convey innuendo about other people being gay seem to know an amazing amount about the gay community? Funny, huh? And, it's not like the path of homophobes isn't filled with homos. Think Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, George Rekers.
One thing this episode shows: Emerson must be really worried about her opponent, Tommy Sowers.
And, I'm sure the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud are going to fight back against the gay-baiting by their fellow GOPers. I'm sure. Read the rest of this post...
NY Times on 'A Basic Civil Right'
Today's NY Times editorializes on the Prop. 8 case on the eve of the June 16th closing arguments:
And, for the record, it was one year ago today, June 11, 2009, that the DOJ filed the infamous "pedophilia and incest" brief defending DOMA. John and I blew that story up open the next day, when we got our hands on the brief. That changed the way many of us viewed the Obama administration. And, they've really done nothing bold to earn back that trust. They're still defending both DOMA and DADT in federal courts across the country. Sure, they given us a few crumbs -- and a weak compromise on DADT repeal that doesn't end the discharges. But, too many of our leaders accept those crumbs and won't criticize Obama, just so they can keep getting invited to the cocktail parties and movie showings. Read the rest of this post...
It’s not possible to know whether the final ruling in this case will broadly confront the overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage. The Supreme Court has, in different cases, called marriage “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and a “basic civil right.”That's right. We shouldn't have to wait for the courts, but that's where we are. Congress does need to repeal DOMA. The President promised he would do that. Repeatedly. Instead, Obama's administration is aggressively defending DOMA in the courts.
The result, even if a win for gay couples, could be a limited ruling confined to the situation in California, where the state’s highest court granted the freedom to marry and voters later repealed it following an ugly campaign spearheaded by antigay religious interests.
But there are actions that can be taken now. States like New York should not put off acting on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Last week, President Obama extended a modest package of benefits — including day care and relocation allowances — to all partners of federal employees. Congress has a duty to extend to same-sex partners the rest of the benefits that are enjoyed by federal workers whose spouses are of a different sex. It also needs to repeal the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
And, for the record, it was one year ago today, June 11, 2009, that the DOJ filed the infamous "pedophilia and incest" brief defending DOMA. John and I blew that story up open the next day, when we got our hands on the brief. That changed the way many of us viewed the Obama administration. And, they've really done nothing bold to earn back that trust. They're still defending both DOMA and DADT in federal courts across the country. Sure, they given us a few crumbs -- and a weak compromise on DADT repeal that doesn't end the discharges. But, too many of our leaders accept those crumbs and won't criticize Obama, just so they can keep getting invited to the cocktail parties and movie showings. Read the rest of this post...
Rachel eviscerated Ike Skelton
John did a post on Rep. Ike Skelton's bizarro statements about DADT on Wednesday. Keep in mind, Skelton is the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. He's going to be in the Conference Committee for the Defense Authorization bill. He will still try to muck it up.
Watch how Rachel destroyed Skelton -- and she got some help from Joe Sestak:
Read the rest of this post...
Watch how Rachel destroyed Skelton -- and she got some help from Joe Sestak:
Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
