Capehart: Now Obama Needs To Do Gay Rights Speech

Washington Post:

There has been a growing roar within the gay community about seeming inaction by a man who promised change.

Some activists fume that President Obama hasn't followed through on his promise to repeal the offensive Defense of Marriage Act or muttered a substantive word about the legalization of same-sex marriage in six states. After last night's airing of NBC's Inside the Obama White House interview, in which Obama provided a tepid answer to a question about whether "gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry in this country have a friend in the White House," the blogosphere is filling with cries of "shameful" and "no passion, no heart, no real connection to our cause."

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[superstition]

Obama deputy campaign manager abandons DOMA & DADT as priorities
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/obama-deputy-campaign-manager-abandons.html

"After two weeks of the Obama White House reeling over the gay backlash caused by the anti-gay DOMA brief, which compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, we now have...

First, that the burden for doing anything pro-gay in the remaining three and a half years of the Obama administration is now shifted to Congress. Obama has no role whatsoever, and no power to influence anything, even though he's still the leader of the free world.

Second, the three big gay rights priorities that Congress should be focusing on do not even include what have organically become the community's top two priorities: repealing DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. They're not even mentioned in the Obama deputy's essay."

[KoolAidAmerica]

Great thats just what we need another speech from the great orator

[Lee Andrew]

Lt. Choi has no honor he knew the law and as an officer broke it. End of story. I am bisexual, and also a veteran. He should have worked form within to change it, instead he's only out for camera face time and celebrity. Enough with these "professional gays." The LGBT community needs pragmatic leaders not showmen.

READ MY BIO

Lee Andrew

US ARMY 173rd RECON CAV

DAV (service connected & compensated)

[BlackWidowPilot]

Back in 1967 there was a married couple named Loving. Their marriage was *illegal* in sixteen (16) states, and the majority of Americans polled *opposed* their marriage many on the grounds of a heartfelt belief that the *Bible* condemned such unions.

Fed up with being harassed by police for no other crime than being a marriage comprised of a white man and a black woman, Richard Loving took his case to the Supreme Court.

That was 1967, and the Supreme Court ruled that those laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. The justices did so in direct defiance of popular opinion, and solely on the basis of the cold, hard facts of the case, and the content of our Constitution, and simple human decency.

Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the woman I am now married to, the wonderful, elegant, amazing, talented *soulmate* that God has blessed me with, well, if it were 1967 our marriage would be *illegal* in sixteen states and the *majority* of Americans would think our marriage *wrong,* and many would no doubt assert that "the Bible says so!"

Being gay is an *orientation,* not a "lifestyle choice," and any first semester Psychology or Human Biology student knows this to be a scientific fact.

To continue to discriminate against the fundamental human right of consenting adults to marry while denying the actual facts of the matter is the height of intellectual dishonesty in the service of a morally bankrupt authoritarian political agenda.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[Michael Shanley]

Thank you for including your voice...

[LintLass]

Of course, there's *this* out there for a statement: how about a Presidential proclamation of this as Gay Rights Month, in commemoration of the fourtieth anniversary of Stonewall?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/

[MamaBird62]

ee
cummings
remark
made
me
smile

[LintLass]

;)

my mouse wheel
has
enough
m
i
l
e
s

on
it

already.

:)

[klandish]

Nice, but a little dry with out his powerful oratorical voice behind it. Needs a little more personality infusing the specifics. But ok, it's a lot better than Bush. ;)

[BacktotheFront]

You are learning klandish, do not expect Obama to take on the world for you. Your insightful full of wisdom thoughts could sway, dare I say it Je sus.

[BacktotheFront]

Can you imagine as Obamas as he goes around the world, and you want him to redefine the key element of what rhymes according to their belief system.(I am the better man for deciding) It would be like trying to redefine what is music as appreciated by each society and country. Too much to be decided by one mortal man in this day and age. As Obama goes around the world he hears and listens to their music and tries to put it in perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFtv5qe5o3c&feature=related

[NoelGreco]

There is a big difference between "campaign speech" and "elected speech."

As more and more naive voters who embraced identity politics discover the difference, we're going to see some Democrat cannibalism.

You can hope for anything, but the nature of the system makes things move more slowly than extremists might wish.

[PlaceboStudman]

We have more than hope. We have real, tangible desires, and it is our duty as citizens to make sure our politicians, yes, all of them, listen to our desires, and push our leaders to do what we want for us, not sit back and let them do what they want to us, as so many people did with the last guy

[NoelGreco]

I have a desire to be wealthy and bequeath my fortune to charity.

Should my "leaders" listen?

[BlackWidowPilot]

Extremists such as these:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

Extremists such as the "talibangelists" who for circa 30 years now have lied, cheated, stolen, and predated children while wrapping themselves in Old Glory and waving a King James edition of the Bible in the faces of We The People?

Those extremists? The same ones who for the past eight years from Hell spewed over 900+ *documented* lies about WMDs and debunked claims of connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 while engaging in torture?

Those extremists, right?

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[NoelGreco]

"'"talibangelists' who for circa 30 years now have lied, cheated, stolen, and predated children while wrapping themselves in Old Glory and waving a King James edition of the Bible in the faces of We The People? "

How does one "predate" a child?

Would you like me to ascribe to you the views of the multitude of Democrat segregationists?

King James was good enough for the Founders.

Lied and cheated - Clinton, Gore, Johnson, Kennedy (many, about many things), Woodrow Wilson -the most racist president in history ...(my fingers tire)

History will tell, Sweet Pea

[JohnJames]

40 years this month since the Stonewall Rebellion. Yep. Pretty darned slow.

[LintLass]

If you think of it generationally, it's taken a whole lot to get us to this point: if there'd been a special school for LBGT kids when *i* was that age, the curriculum would have been electroshock, beatings, and religious programming. I'm glad to see things an be easier for kids in some places.

It's just time.

[GlenRast]

Before you fulfill your need to but a nefarious twist on Obama's speeches try to keep in mind that a campaign speech contains what you'd like to do. Once you arrive in DC and begin to wade through the many headed monster called the congress you have to shift to what you can do with the current political climate. It's called reality.

There's a long history of the electorate turning their backs on candidates who state the cold hard truth during elections. It may not be right but it's reality

[AbbieXHoffman]

On June 29th we'll know one way or another if the POTUS is going to work to repeal DOMA. He has until that day to decide whether to direct the DOJ to defend the case from MA against the DOMA clause that says that states can't deny marriage benefits to same sex marriages that were performed in states that legalize same sex marriage like MA.

And BO's former constitutional law professor even says that clause of DOMA is unconstitutional violating the due process of the 5th Amendment. see below
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/obamas-law-professor-says_b_211854.html

If this happens and the case is won, that will be the end of this. Most gays wanting to marry will seek marriage in a state that allows it and move to the state of their choice. Eventually enough states will have married gay couples with families that they know and get used to it.

Gallup shows that those who know gay people in their life are much more accepting of same sex marriage. "Further analysis reveals that, when controlling for ideology, those who know someone who is gay or lesbian are significantly more supportive of gay marriage than are those of the same political persuasion who do not personally know someone who is gay or lesbian."

[We-Are-The-Ones]

FYI . . . Whether Obama gives a Speech or Not, he has Spoken

Obama signed a proclamation Monday that declared the month of June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride month. In that Proclamation he continued to support civil unions, repeal of DADT, benefits for gay diplomats' families, and a ban of discrimination based on sexuality, among other things. He has also hired openly LGBT members as part of his administration.

During the Clinton administration's time in the White House, it became customary to declare June gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered pride month. That practice was halted during the Bush occupancy of the White House.

And from the article above:

"what may appear to be inaction on the surface masks a whirl of activity geared toward change. Consider that the administration has been working to get the hate crimes bill passed. Extending domestic partner benefits to federal employees is under consideration. By the administration’s count, there are 60 openly gay men and women working for the president, nine of whom have been confirmed by the senate.

And a senior administration told me that an openly gay ambassador will be named shortly. And “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? It will take a little longer to "bring the military along," the administration official said. But, he added, Obama "has been very clear with the Pentagon that he wants [the policy] ended."

Speech or no, Obama is working for gay rights.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Good post. I'd like him to do more, but good post.

[PlaceboStudman]

Is it too much to ask that these proclamations and other statements be made in public in front of an audience and a camera?

I'll give him credit for confronting the issue with the Brian Williams interview, but, so long as policies remain the same, we as citizens have the responsibility to keep the pressure on him to do as much as he can

And of course the same goes for Congress. But they don't have the same media attention the president does, so while all of these are good signs, so long as they are quiet covert behind the scenes, how much importance can we put on them compared to the very real public acts of signing bills (which haven't even been presented yet)

[We-Are-The-Ones]

No. That is not much to ask.

I surprised there was NO new about it on HuffPo or on shows like Rachel Maddow. Media blackout on this is surprising.

[BacktotheFront]

Your first sentence has as much weight as saying "lets show some footage of the LGBT community fighting the cause of civil rights for the Black man." Where were you when that cause was going down. MLK fought a fight. Fight your own fight. Not on the coattails of a good man. You people need to do the ground work/home work first.

[klandish]

I'd love for Obama to give a "controversial" yet uplifting and definitive speech like he did on Race Relations after the Rev. Wright tapes came out. At the time his words were personal yet far reaching and it was the perfect time to give his perspective on an issue that was plaguing him politically. Gays will likewise plague him until he realizes it's time for another perspective spoken Nationally on one of the most important Civil Rights issues we have today. Obama is one of the wisest visionaries Socially and Constitutionally we have ever had. He needs to step up to the plate. The sooner the better.

[BacktotheFront]

Mr. Obama is the president of the United States. He is not a civil activist. His interest on how to serve his Country includes the will being and harmony of the World to make it all work. He does not control Congress or the courts. When he meets with world leaders, in this day and age, the least he can be criticized, the better. How other countries view Obama in a positive way, the better. World opinion in this day carries much weight. Let the courts and states wrangle on how to define marriage, leave Obama out of it. Prove your salt and do your homework/groundwork and you will be fine.

[wdw505]

i think you are right he should give that speech......i'd love to see how much it would cost politically

[NoelGreco]

"FYI . . . Whether Obama gives a Speech or Not, he has Spoken"

You forgot to capitalize the "h" in he.

[klandish]

And you forgot to take down that offensive picture down.

[GlenRast]

Here's some questions.

Can the DOMA be repealed by a stroke of Obama's pen or would it take a majority in Congress.

If the later is true then why is all the anger being directed toward Obama and not at the members of Congress who won't repeal it?

Is it because he's an easy target?

[PlaceboStudman]

Well, I know for me that I've written my senators and reps, and they've all to a number said that they can't do anything until something is presented in congress, and they won't do it themself, so they are apparently waiting for the president to say "Okay, boys, it's the right time, let's do this" before they can do anything.

So to continue to harp on them, and believe me, many of us have, is pointless until they get the go ahead okay from the man himself

At least that's the impression I've gotten from my congressmen

[We-Are-The-Ones]

This is a lie. The President does not legislate. In order for "something [to be] presented in Congress," Congress must present a bill.

This is cowardly. Congress can act. They don't choose to do so. Why not protest them?

[NoelGreco]

"At least that's the impression I've gotten from my congressmen..."

How many "congressmen" do you have?

Has ACORN been in your neighborhood?

[gaydm]

DOMA can either be repealed by majority vote by both houses of congress and signed by the President. Or it can be passed by a super majority of both houses to override a possible veto. So technically, yes a stroke of a pen by Obama could do away with DOMA. DOMA may also be struck down either in part, or in whole by SCOTUS.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

the President can sign legislation ONCE it is passed. Until then, Congress must act before there is a stroke of the pen.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Oh come on. You know why people are petitioning the POTUS.

It's not because he's an easy target. It's because he has the largest bully pulpit on the planet and because is not only a leader in Congress but most dems would have a hard time going against a POTUS this popular. He could lead the way for this very easily.

AND if BO comes out, those who use him for cover, won't be able to anymore. Most homophobes feel empowered and use the POTUS as cover for their homophobia. That has been discussed all over the place.

[HesDanTheMan]

Why would anyone even want to answer your questions you ask, when you don't bother to answer ours? It works two ways you know.

[Usama]

That's a petulant question devoid of the consideration of the legacy of marriage as the fundamental institution of human society.

In a modern era wherein every facet of the human condition is scrutinized and evaluated based on the modern secular utilitarian criterion of benefit, from the meaning and conception of human life to the authorization and meaning of ending human life, it is the devotee to this who chooses to redefine marriage.

Such is an ideological position. If you adhere to it as such, so be it.

But those who choose to stray from the legacy of human society pertaining to marriage forge their own path in the wilderness. And it should be noted that the this single matter does not exist alone- there are many similar ideological positions which collectively chart the course for those who adhere to this ideology.

Denying the legacy of human history is NOT an excellent point- its a ideological position that one chooses.

[PlaceboStudman]

In other words, "Marriage is a religious institution, so sit down and shut up, you idiotic blasphemoous infadels"

[gaydm]

What petulant question would you be referring to? If you are referring to marriage as the fundamental institution of human society, you would be wrong. That title goes to child birth, and no license is needed for that. And with close to 7 billion people on the planet, that institution is getting rather worn out.

[BlackWidowPilot]

I prefer adhering to *empirical evidence* and the Scientific Method as much as anything: no blind faith in debatable religious dogmas are involved.

Being gay is an orientation, not a mere "lifestyle choice."

"Legacy of marriage?" Pray, do tell *which* legacy of marriage you're referring to?

Could it be the one involving arranged marriages where the bride and groom are selected by the elder male heads of their respective families while they are still children, and don't even necessarily meet until their wedding day?

Could it be the legacy of marriage where women and young girls are bought and sold like cattle for a negotiated "bride price," and neither the bride nor any other woman for that matter has a say in the transaction?

Could it be the legacy of marriage where under age girls are forcibly married to old men by the tribal or religious elders? Been to Saudi Arabia lately?

How about the polygamy of the Taliban?

Perhaps its the pre-Vatican II Catholic legacy that forced God-only-knows how many women to stay married to abusive, cheating husbands for the rest of their lives, as divorce was a *sin" according to Papal decree and Biblical interpretation, no matter how often or badly they were raped, beaten, or worse by their husbands?

Pray, tell, which "legacy of marriage" are you referring to?

If anyone here is denying history, citizen, it is IMHO *you.*

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

[klandish]

There is no A Gay Lifestyle anymore than there is A Heterosexual lifestyle. Some fantasy dreamt up by the exploitive media and a bunch of repressed dreamers who have closeted propensities and get a thrill being tantalized by their own obsessive revulsion.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Yawn. (..and we have separation of church and state in via the 1st Amendment.)

[SelenicMagick]

The only "redefining" being done is being done by fundamentalist christian homophobes with cranial-rectumitis.

Marriage, the institution, ORIGINALLY had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion or religious beliefs.

Marriage, in the original, non-religious context, included polygamy AND homosexuality in addition to what we today view as something "reserved for straight couples of opposite genders".

There is NO historical, non-religious context for marriage being limited to who we limit it to today... and it IS a basic human right for ALL people NOT just those who are religious or just those who are straight.

(So says the Polygamous Pagan High Priestess with 3 husbands. :D )

[LintLass]

I think that'd make you 'polyandrous,' actually. Better treat those boys right. :)

[gaydm]

Where does it state, or demand, or authorize, or even threaten, plead or beg, in the legal Civil Contract of Marriage, that sex be partaken of? Where does it state how many children you must have to engage in said Civil Marriage Contract? And if not, why is gender of the 2 parties involved in the contract, even considered?

[HesDanTheMan]

Now that's an excellent question.

[gaydm]

Yes, And they are some questions I have never gotten an coherent answer too either.

[AlaskanWannaB]

When did Obama promise Gays change? He supports civil unions. He is against "gay" marriage or believes "marriage" is between one woman and one man. Some of us gay supporters are tired of the gay movement, now. Give it a damn rest. You cannot force "gay marriage" down our throats. Civil unions, where you are given every right that heterosexual couples are given, should suffice. I think the gay movement want the "marriage" definition because they want to be able to force this lifestyle on the masses. They want it taught in schools; equal to heterosexual relationship. Lesbian and gay relationships are abnormal, just like pedophilia is abnormal. Next, every freakish, sexual deviant will be want their lifestyle "normalized." I believe homosexual were born as homosexuals; however, this does not make it normal. I also believe pedophiles were born that way (DNA). Do we make pedophilia legal in the next 50 years because that is the way we are heading. Look in AOL chatrooms and see how many homosexuals want to connect with teenagers......

[SD Indy]

Why be an AlaskanWannaB? Move there and secede already! Get the heII out of my country! You know, the one that PROMISES equal protection under the law, equal RIGHTS, and equal OPPORTUNITY for all!

Despite what you believe, he PROMISED to work toward repealing DADT, DOMA, and toward urging Congress to pass hate crimes legislation (that includes LGBT), ENDA, UAFA, etc. But don't let facts and OUR rights get in the way of your big.otry.

[PlaceboStudman]

Wow, if you're the example we get of a "supporter" (as you claim) I think we're better off fighting this fight without you

[HesDanTheMan]

AlaskanWannaB most likely is a tro.ll provided by Sarah PAC.

[BlackWidowPilot]

I prefer adhering to *empirical evidence* and the Scientific Method as much as anything: no blind faith in debatable religious dogmas are involved.

Being gay is an orientation, not a mere "lifestyle choice."

Pedophiles are overwhelmingly *made* such by sexual abuse in childhood. Pedophilia is a *compulsion* not the behavior of healthy, consenting adults, and any first semester student of Psychology knows this for a well-and-t­horoughly-­establishe­d fact.

Your continuing to conflate being gay with pedophiles is mere proof positive that you have nothing to bring to the table but appeals to ignorance and fearmongering falsehoods.

But just for chuckles, since you claim to know about human sexual orientation and deviancy, do tell, where did you receive your training in Psychology? Your certification in Psychiatry (M.D.)?

Do tell.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

P.S. Here are over seventy (70) *documented* criminal cases involving Pedophiles; see if you can spot the common denominators:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

[We-Are-The-Ones]

You claim "Civil unions, where you are given every right that heterosexual couples are given, should suffice." Yet, you are wrong.

There are 1000 or more differences between civil union and marriage. For actual information on this, see http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

You are also not a supporter of gay rights because you post screams of bigotry and ignorance. Pray for yourself.

[FrReader]

There are SO many things wrong with this comment. Where to even start?

First, you are clearly not a "gay supporter." Your entire post is riddled with insults and dehumanizing language, and if you can't see that, well then you may as well stop reading my comment right now. If you're willing to stand up and say, yes, I am a bigot, then maybe we can continue.

Second. We are not trying to "force gay marriage down your throats." We are instead trying to fight for a right that, constitutionally, really should already be ours. There is no imposition going on. This is NOT about you. This is about the millions of Americans who are denied the chance to live the life they want with the people they love. As hard as it may be for you to realize, THIS. IS. NOT. ABOUT. YOU.

[LintLass]

I've been willing to be patient with Obama on this stuff, with so much else going on, and knowing that if he says anything too favorable to gays, all his other policies will suddenly be subject to a conservative frenzy of homophobia and all that.

I think an exception here is the Arabic translators who were discharged for being gay: that really shouldn't be allowed to stand, even if the idea there is probably to get some more credibility with the generals before moving on that.

The order in which things happen is important, but we won't wait forever.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Lt. Choi was discharged because he broke the law. He violated DADT. While repulsive, DADT is THE law of the land. It is not currently subject to discretionary application.

According to its terms, it SHALL be applied if duly enacted regulations are passed. Such regulations were passed.

If Choi wanted to stay in the military, he should have followed the law rather than violating it on Rachel Maddow. We may have needed him, but he chose his self interests over what the country needed.

DADT needs to be repealed. But until it is, it has to be followed.

[SelenicMagick]

Question: Do you expect YOUR children (assuming that you have children) to have the "courage of their convictions"?

It is VERY obvious to me that Lt. Choi has the courage of his convictions AND that he had the courage to do what HE believes to be the "right" thing.

Being a MOM gives one a different perspective. DADT was STUPID when it was written as an executive order and it's STILL STUPID. Who I am sharing my "goodies" with has NO bearing on my job... and it darn sure should NOT have any bearing on members of the military either!

[BlackWidowPilot]

Ping I'm a Fan of Ping permalink
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_
"Your legal case is based on an out and out lie. No better than Cheney"
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_________

Once again, Herr "ping" resorts to clinical projection behavior when confronted with Loving vs. Virginia as a precedent for why the full right to marriage under the law should be extended to those who are gay. The point, Herr "ping," is that Loving vs. Virginia establishes a clear precedent that the right of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS to marry is in fact a civil right, and not merely about the rights of straight couples of differing skin colours to marry.

That you willfully deny the *science* proving that human sexual orientation is established in our DNA only underscores your agenda in opposition to gays being extended full civil rights under the law as intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

Make no mistake, Herr 'ping," your willful denial of the scientific facts of human sexual orientation are in direct opposition to the AMA and APA.

So who should one turn to about the *science* of human sexual orientation? The membership of the APA and AMA, mental healthcare and healthcare providers all, or an anonymous blogger with an authoritarian political agenda viscerally unwilling to even acknowledge empirical evidence when it is presented to them on the proverbial silver platter with a bow around it?

God pity you, Herr "ping," for yours is indeed a willfully lost soul.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

[Swatantra]

It doesn't take much convincing to define the anti-gay-marriage argument
as discrimination. We are all BORN either gay or straight, just like we are
all BORN one race or another. It's not a "lifestyle choice".
We can't help it, so stop the division now.

[wdw505]

so it is genetic now?

[PlaceboStudman]

No, there is no "gay gene", however there is evidence that it may be a structural component of brain physiology based on exposure to unbalanced hormones during gestation

[BlackWidowPilot]

There is mounting evidence that human sexual orientation is written in the human DNA. It is most certainly *NOT* a mere "lifestyle choice" as such as you persist in mischaracterizing being gay.

But then again, intellectual integrity is not what we know to expect from HuffPo's resident "nondenominational capitalist" who is "OK with waterboarding."

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[JohnJames]

No. Spending our time arguing with cretins like you is one of the joys of the gay lifestyle that we foolishly signed up for (or were we recruited?).