The news that President Obama will mention DADT in tonight's State of the Union address was received by the Gay blog-o-sphere with the kind of cynicism and spite typically reserved for the truly homophobic. Steeped in skepticism and laden with an infantile sense of defeatism, some important blogs even suggested the President skip speaking of DADT entirely.
I often use the word "reckless" to describe such voices, but in this case reckless would be generous. Because not only must the President speak of DADT during his address, he must lay-out a plan for its eventual repeal in a way that is democratic, long-lasting and moral. Not because juvenile Gay media types say so.
But because you, Barack Obama, you said so!
Unlike many other LGBT bloggers, I've never stooped to calling President Obama a homophobe. Yes, decisions such as the Rick Warren inauguration appearance were certainly misguided. But to brand Barack Obama a homophobe both diminishes the very potency of that word while opening the door for real homophobes to one day take this community down.
Instead, I believe the President is as sensitive to LGBT concerns as he is to the concerns of every oppressed American. It took eight years for Bill Clinton to wreck havoc on Gay America with DADT and DOMA and I never anticipated this damage could be undone in a mere 12 months. How anyone could only confirms the poisonous myopia of the insta-everything Gay-stream.
White House haters may view the repeal of DADT as just another opportunity for an anti-Obama blog-smear. But we must remember this is truly life and death for LGBT soldiers. For them, this is not a mere headline or debate topic, but rather their ability to serve safely and securely while protecting our safety and security. This is an issue with no room for cynicism, but only respect, urgency and action.
Most importantly, this is the moment -- one of many still ahead of us -- where LGBTs must stop their Bama-bashing and Dem-dissing and demand (yes, once again!) that the President abide by his promise to repeal DADT. Not because the President "owes" us something, or has "thrown us under a bus" (come on!). But because he has a moral imperative to abide by the moral compass I believe has always guided him.

Ending DADT is simply the right thing to do. And Barack Obama knows it.
While President Obama can certainly kick-start a DADT repeal, this is not a one-man operation. Particularly if we want to ensure such policies will truly -- and irrevocably -- become law. It's essential President Obama show the leadership and will needed to end DADT, but it's equally key that we as citizens demonstrate we are right there behind him. That as much as we demand he act as a fierce advocate for LGBTs, that we are equally fierce advocates for ourselves.
Perhaps one cynical truth is absolutely certain, politicians are -- in the main -- mostly preoccupied by a single goal: Retaining their jobs. If their constituents support a DADT repeal, they'll support a DADT repeal. But they must hear from those constituents -- and they must hear from them now! Indeed, as we gear up for tonight's address, it has never been more crucial to send a shout-out to the White House that the nation will no longer tolerate discrimination against our soldiers.
I have spoken aggressively against LGBT talking heads who bash the Oval Office with little concern for the consequences of their actions. Lots of bashing has gone on since details of the President's speech have begun to emerge on Monday. I do not call myself a leader. But I do ask those who truly desire LGBT equality trade defeatism for a solutions-based mindset that will usher in the change Pres. Obama both promised and must deliver.
First move: Contact your Senators (here) and Congressmen (here) NOW and let them know you support the DADT repeal and demand that they do, too.
Follow David Kaufman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/transracial
I have my reservations on anything wrote by this self styled "Ultimate Minority" who asserts that Gay people have not "earned" rights. And more.
good article.
"They say alot of things on the campaign trail"....Nancy Pelosi
We are in a major mess, right now. Don't stand aside, please help.
However, I think Obama's administration just doesn't think about LGBT issues or people much at all. Seriously, he invited Rick Warren to the inauguration, thereby probably permanently alienating and angering millions (yes, millions) of formerly ardent supporters. For what?
Now if that isn't insensitive, tone deaf, politically stupid, and just plain unnecessary.... Seriously, with that one dumb decision, the rose colored glasses came off of millions of gay eyes on the first day, to be replaced with the dull red of anger. What did you expect would happen when you kick a man in the teeth, when he is already down? My gay friends are finding is impossible to get rid of the anger. I am finding it impossible to get rid of the anger. Maybe an apology would help, but that won't be happening.
but were we ? No. Why choose something so trivial as a flash point ? Women have
to conserve their energies for the real and ongoing battles behind the scenes.
If your gay friends are finding it 'impossible to get rid of the anger',
maybe they should look elsewhere for the real source of that anger,
rather than assigning all blame to one incident, which was more than
counterbalanced by many gay-friendly events during the inaugural festivities.
This continued emphasis on the Rick Warren prayer is nothing but grudge holding.
All you can do with your whining is hurt us all.
I do get sick and tired, though, of a lot of people saying that white gay men only supported Hillary Clinton because their racist. I think that it is equally (if not more true) that given the relationship of homophobia to misogyny, that the assumption existed that Hillary would be more sympathetic to gay cause. there's a gender factor there, too.
Also...one thing that Clinton was good at that Obama is not (and he's never been good at it) is showing passion and emotion. Granted, I think that the American people did, to an extent, elect Obama as president based on those qualities, it does seem to me (and many others) that he's a bit too cerebral at tines.
I say that to say that I think that more important than the actual content of the speech tonight is the style it's delivered. Will Obama, a la Bill Clinton, show that he can "feel our pain?" Or will the SOTU simply look like another intellectual exercise (or Obama as Dr. Spock...and he defintely has the ears for that)?
1) The president can't be alll that sympathetic to LGBT concerns simply because he's not LGBT.
2) I do question his moral compass on this specific matter because he allowed his general to say out loud that segreation into "gay" and "straight" units was acceptable. Even if the generals are proposing that policy to the Administration, I really don't want to know that. That's disrepectful.
3) Whether he's personally homophobic or not, I don't know...although I doubt that he could have sat up in Rev. Wrights church for 20 years and be a homophobe.
It's the politics and the miscues that always seem to happen aroung gay issues (this is really evident with Press Secretary Gibbs). And granted, I see the need to at least attempt to reach accross the aisle to the religious right, reaching accross to someone who campaigned for the passage of Proposition 8 (and the Administration, IMO, underestimated the outcry and the hurt among LGBT for that) didn't help.
I would describe the politics of this Administration as homophobic, thus far. Or maybe it's just the spokespeople.
To suggest that Obama talk about a real end to DADT tonight because "he said so" ignores the many issues he "said so" about but did not address or act forcefully upon, not just DADT. And the Warren choice was far worse than simply "misguided," and was the canary in the mine. The canary died, and that worse-than-misguided act was a harbinger of things to come: a huge gap between the pledge and the action, between the stated values and the company kept/positions taken. That includes the recent "spending freeze." During the campaign Obama opposed a freeze, and after the Massacusetts special election, he was for it. When he "says so," we have every reason to be skeptical. It is not simply a question of Washington politics being a tougher swamp to get through than we or he thought. He conceded ground even before the alligators were up to his knees.
I agree that positive action should replace whining. But I think that what would be most "reckless" is continuing to believe things that are not credible, or to support politicians who have silver tongues and gold in their pockets or cold in their hearts. I don't think Obama is a homophobe, but between Rahm's advice and Obama's own calculations, equal rights is simply not a priority.