What the President is Missing on Gay Rights

I know it seems odd. Ironic even. I was listening to the president's speech to the veterans on Omaha Beach, commemorating the anniversary of D-Day and it hit me. Funny I know. I was listening to him address military veterans and I realized what is missing in the president's approach to gay civil rights.

On Sunday June 6, he spelled out, as only he and Jon Favreau can, the significance of the day not as some pedantic history lesson but as a narrative. The tale of ordinary men who found themselves in the most extraordinary of circumstances. And sure, every president throws in an anecdote about someone in the audience but for Obama, it is more than that.

My kids have had a gifted middle school history teacher. No textbooks for Judy Berecski. She brings the lessons of history to life through the personal narrative, giving our kids the opportunity to walk in the shoes of slaves, of soldiers, of those expanding America to the west, to immigrants arriving to find a home in the United States. Why? Because she believes that without empathy as a lens, history is meaningless. What choices did those men and women have? What could they have done differently? What would you have done in that situation? It is through questions and discussions that our kids realized that history is simply the reading and telling of the most remarkable story.

When first asked about the criteria for selection of a Supreme Court Justice, the president caused a stir by using the word empathy. He wants justices who understand the impact of the law on real peoples' lives. Empathy is about personal connection, about caring. Not something you learn in a textbook. It is the most important ingredient in the human experience. Caring about your fellow man.

Whether it is an address in Cairo or at Buchenwald or in Philadelphia on the campaign trail, the president speaks so eloquently, so empathetically about the real impact of the fear of difference in our society.

This is exactly what has been missing from the president on gay rights. Empathy.

I believe with all my heart that the president is in the right place on all our issues and that we will see more progress in an Obama administration than we could hope for. The impressive record of the first 100 days (and the work since) tells me that.

But I haven't heard evidence of empathy. Yet. And its absence has begun to create an air of suspicion -- a growing sense among bloggers and activists -- that we once again were courted for our votes and our dollars and then promptly left on the back burner. Or maybe not on the stove at all.

We have a right to be impatient. Let's remember. It was not very long ago that the former POTUS stood before the American people and announced that he was pushing for an amendment to the Constitution banning marriage equality. It was not so long ago that we could be charged as criminals in many states for who we love. We may be on TV and even hosting the Tonys but let's be clear. We are second class citizens. We have every right to make noise and to push.

But what we need most of all is a president who illustrates that he cares about us. A president who honors our struggle, honors our plight, honors those among us who have been fighting the good fight. We need a president who can weave a heartfelt narrative that reminds the American people that equality for gay Americans is not simply an issue of law, of right and wrong. But that as members of a global community, we have personal connections and obligations to the people with whom we share this world.

The message must come, not from his head, from his vast understanding of Constitutional law, but from his heart. Why? First, without the inclusion of empathy in the narrative of history, we learn nothing. No one changes. And secondly, the gay community knows full well. We are controversial; Going to bat for gay and lesbian equality requires more than simply having logic and intellect on your side. We've learned. The hard way.

Leaders who have been successful in moving gay rights forward are right. Of course they are. But equally as important, they care. And they communicate that commitment by helping others to walk in our shoes.

Empathy. The president took heat when talking about this as a criterion for a Supreme Court Justice. But not from me. I thought it was absolutely spot on.

Now I'd like some empathy from the president. It would make the waiting easier. I could be more patient. And if he can weave empathy into a strategy of diplomacy I believe we will have elected a president who can lead us in tackling the most important civil rights issue of our time.

Comments

[KoolAidAmerica]

The fierce advocate continues to deliver again. Gays like to be taken on a ride again and again by the Democrats. We are Obama's Sister Souljh to appeal to the social conservatives.

[ez duz it]

By all accounts, the Supreme Court has no intention to intervene on behalf of gays and lesbians. The Court senses no imperative to insure LGBT people unfettered access to the rights and protections guaranteed all persons in the Constitution.

At least publicly, the Executive Office appears not to be moving to promote equal civil rights for LGBT people. Its support of the DADT policy before the US Supreme Court is a case in point.

The U.S. Congress has no defined intention to repeal any of the discriminatory legislation against gays and lesbians that it created. Cases in point: DOMA and DADT.

The majority of the voting public, even if sympathetic to the plight of LGBT people, has demonstrated no overwhelming desire to pressure the Court, the Executive Office or Congress to abolish discriminatory laws and practices.

Is it possible that gays and lesbians must finally look within their own community for a remedy against discrimination?

Might the remedy gays and lesbians seek against oppression appear as resistance similar to the form of “satyagraha,” or civil disobedience, developed and championed by Mahatma Gandhi?

Imagine 100,000 or 250,000 or 1,000,000 LGBT people with their families and friends peacefully and symbolically blockading entrance to the Supreme Court building . . . day after day.

Imagine, also, the possible police beatings, tear gas, water canons, K-9 unit attacks against the demonstrators.

Imagine change.

Imagining change is good, but it must be mingled with unimpeachable action that yields change.

[Steamboater]

You're so right about this. We should also have national days where we don't spend any money because if it's one thing that America prioritizes, it's money. One day a week, bring you own lunch to work. Don't eat out, don't shop, don't order online, don't go to a bar (even Gay bars because they get their stock from heteros), don't travel, if you can walk to work, do so instead pf taking a bus or subway and using up gasoline for you car etc and here in CA we should start blocking the entrance to the the Capitol building in Sacramento in droves and let the world see how California responds but mostly, let Obama see because he's been a disgrace and just as as much a failure on Gay rights as Bill Cllinton was. Hit those states that would deny Gays their rights and hit them hard and especially California and New York where full equal rights isn't happening. Ghandi himself even supported a boycott of some British goods.

[SonofLiberty1]

Oh, just like that "Day without a gay" thing?
And that went over real good...

No one noticed...

[rooseveltdunn]

You problem is that you seem to only view this issue from he gay oint of view then you have he guts to say that gay rights is the most important civil rights issue of our time,like you guys have it bad. Try been black in the 60's and then you will see real suffering.

[Blissable]

Please stop playing group against group. This idea that "my" civil rights are more important than "your" civil rights is why we don't all have the "same" civil rights. Supporting one group should not (and does not) diminish the struggles and suffering of another. Equality is equality. It should not come with conditions.

[ifihadahammer]

Your worldview is very saddening. Very sad indeed.

Let's leave the "my scars are bigger" game on the playground with the kids.

[oafishcad]

Stop hiding your bigotry behind Rosa Parks skirts.

[oafishcad]

I seem to recall you could be imprisoned for being gay in the 60s. Yeah that's so much better off.

[FearlessFreep]

People are still being murdered for being (or seeming) gay.

[SonofLiberty1]

And I'm sure that anyone can walk down a street and get killed and not because they even see you.

Murder is murder period.

[Indra]

The reason you do not see empathy in the President is that you are coming from a gay rights point of view. In fact the current issue of gay marriage is a issue of redefining IE: a matter of definition changing. It is not seen as a rights issue by him and others. You can rail against this all you want but you can't make it go away. You have to deal with it. Most of the country is against gay marriage. For instance it should have passed in liberal California but it did not. A small number of states have passed legislation but it is a dribble. We are not talking mass movement here! Things will change but I believe it will take about 10 years or so. Thee will not be this instant domino effect that some people are thinking will happen. Basically the majority of voters are hetero and politicians like to get votes. A more practical approach is needed.

[Rrhain]

The reason you do not see empathy in the President is that you are coming from a racial rights point of view. In fact, the current issue of interracial marriage is an issue of redefining, i.e.: a matter of definition changing.

So when the courts overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia despite more than 70% of the population wanting interracial marriage to be illegal, that was the wrong thing to do?

What is this "practical approach" of yours?

[carsntrucks]

You can't recast dissent with the gay rights agenda with a racial slant and expect it to make sense. You just look verklempt and lacking an *actual* argument when you do that.

[FearlessFreep]

"It is not seen as a rights issue by him." Obama did see it that way 15 years ago, before he started putting his presidential ambitions ahead of principle. He needs to return to his earlier instincts.

[SonofLiberty1]

That's right. We do not see this as a Civil Rights issue at all.
Sorry, but no dice.

[oafishcad]

It doesn't really matter if you see it as a civil rights issue. It is one. Whether you see it or not.

[LeftRight]

Ok, and I know a bunch of rednecks (my wife's ex-in-laws) who don't see women's rights or blacks rights as a civil rights issue. Does that mean that it's not?? OF COURSE NOT!! Civil rights are civil rights, and even if the majority is opposed, the people who are being denied their rights MUST be given their rights!!

[WasteNJ]

"the most important civil rights issue of our time."..

Are you joking? What "time" are we referring to here?

- Do you, as a Gay person, have trouble getting a cab?
- Are Gays disproportionately incarcerated in US prisons due to skewed sentencing practices?
- How many Gays have been lynched for it?
- Do you as a Gay person systematically get steered into junk mortgages?
- Do you get pulled over for Driving While Gay?

Now I am not discounting your struggle, please don't discount ours. There's a reason that many black people are unsympathetic to the Gay rights issue, you tend to compare it to the Civil Rights struggle and there's simply no comparison.

[diogenes1967]

So because they are not your injustices, does that negate them.

Oh, and being pulled over driving while gay, yes it does happen

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/apr/03/local/chi-cop-gay-protestapr03

[Indra]

I agree! Good argument.

[diogenes1967]

And if I had died in that football field in Washington DC while being pummeled by 9 hooligans while someone watched, would that have been lynching enough for you?

So, so many crimes committed against gay people go unreported because the police are not sympathetic.

And if there is anyone qualified to make appropriate comparisone, I am sir, with all due respect. How dare you play the race card.

[diogenes1967]

Over 1700 years of anti-gay legislation. IT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE. Maybe it is the particular set of civil rights that happened to black people (though in some cases like employment and housing discrimination, it actually is) but that does not make it any less of a civil rights struggle.

[TheMisFit]

How insulting. The fact that black people still face harsh discrimination doesn't give you the corner on civil rights. While society lags behind on issues of racism the fact is that the laws have been changed. That is not the case for gays today. The laws are unjust.
And you're list of questions -- again, insulting. People are killed in this world every single day just because they are gay. And that doesn't count the beatings and ridicule. Someone who is killed for being gay is just as dead as anyone who has been killed for being black. They are both heinous, cruel acts of hatred.
Gay people do not diminish what blacks have gone through in this country - please don't diminish what we have.
Sounds to me like you are just looking for an excuse to justify your prejudices.

[Steamboater]

So right MisFit. Smeone like that poster thinks he or she has all exclusive rights and proviledges to being victimized by hate and in doing so is superior to anyone going through the SAME thing. What arrogance!

[oafishcad]

I think Obama, since taking office, has made clear his intentions and where his intentions lie. They lie with 2008 and the next election. Ambition trumps empathy. Clinton proved that gays are convenient to get elected, inconvenient once you are. I support much of what Obama's done, though I think he's been shifting too conservative. On this issue he's just flat out wrong. If you do not support equality, you're saying the oppressed group is less than human. One of us is chained, none of us is free. Gays are us.

[marignymitch]

Gay Americans have served their purpose; we worked mightily to elect Obama. The purpose of post-election gay Americans is to shut up and go away. Unfortunately for Obama we're not co-operating.

[carsntrucks]

Oh please. The gay community did nothing. They voted their interests and that was electing the Democrat..­.it just happened to be Obama. Initially all of you were for Hillary.

[oafishcad]

Not true. Gay votes, gay money and gay time were given to Obama. If some were for someone else initially, so what? Get off your pedestal. Would he have been elected without gay support? Maybe.

[GEM-592]

Please vote.

Which is the most important civil rights issue of our time?

1) Gay marriage.

2) Affordable, accessible health care for all Americans.

Of course, as I hear you scream, one shouldn't have to choose; both are important - I agree. Or maybe you'd argue that they don't compare, 2 is not about civil rights, but is basically an economic issue, while 1 is about fundamental human decency - perhaps. However, to illustrate the political problem of the gay marriage movement, I submit that most Democrats would quickly answer 2, even after hearing your passioned arguments for 1 from the depths of your soul. Of course, this speaks to why Obama (and other Democrats) tend to hush up or double back on the issue after the polls close.

[Sebbybear]

I agree that affordable, accessible health care is probably a "more important" issue to the average American than equity for gays and lesbians. So perhaps is the state of the environment and a host of other issues. Those things are all important to me too. But there are lots of folks out there to fight for health care reform, the environment, etc., etc., etc., pick your cause de jour.
There is NO one to fight for gay equality except those of us who are gay. We must stand up and refuse to be silent or accept our current status as second class citizens. We can't expect straights to do it for us. No matter how empathetic or supportive, no heterosexual can truly understand what it is to be gay any more than a white person can truly understand what it means to be a person of color. That's o.k., we don't need understanding. Just equal treatment under the law.
So excuse us if we keep sounding the same one note. Just do what's right and just and you won't have to hear it anymore, but until then...Wha­t do we want? Equality. When do we want it? NOW!

[SonofLiberty1]

And likewise, you can't know what it is to be a heterosexual either.
Maybe you don't realize it but what you see as fear and loathing is just the fear that
your charge might become gay...

And have to suffer because that means being very different and having a life that is filled with sorrow.

[GEM-592]

I don't understand why you need to narrow your struggle this way, Lyndon Johnson did much to get the Civil Rights Act passed, but he's hardly black. Just because someone isn't gay doesn't mean they can't understand what's right ... I'm not black but I understand that blacks shouldn't be slaves.

You don't need understanding perhaps from "heteros", but for equal treatment under the law you will eventually need their political support in some high places.

[oafishcad]

I voted for Obama because I thought he could chew gum and walk at the same time. Was I wrong?

[GEM-592]

politically, it seems so.

[Steamboater]

First off, as much as some heteros think we're "screamers'; we're not. We're angry! Have you been so uninformed about DADT and so many other issues? Marriage for that matter denies us such equality as joint tax returns, something you're entitled to just buy the fact that you're heterosexual. Job security, which is matter of these econoimics you talk about it, is not secure across the boad for Gays either. What you fail to understand is that marriage however would include us more and more into the mainstream of American perceptions and in doing so that would lessen perceptions of us as monsters who threaten society and help to secure us from violence and worse.

[carsntrucks]

Be angry all you want! DADT only affects a handful of gays and lesbians at a time, there is no right to a joint tax return (I'm not losing sleep because you can't get a joint tax return) and if you can't manage to keep the fact that you are attracted to other men to yourself at your job, I'd say that's a personal problem.

You're angry because society isn't as accepting as you want them to be, and then when the President wont take your side in the culture war, you get mad at him. Please.

[Steamboater]

To Gem-592 (continuing my post)

So much of the bad that happens to Gay people is unreported so it's understandable why often hetreros dont understand our struggle. I was attacked in a telephone booth by two beer swilling heteros who kicked the glass of the booth trying to get at me calling me "F@ggot ... f@aggot ..." . I had been first in line to use the booth and they tried to push me out of the way but I got in and closed the door and then that's when it began. I called 911. People were walking by and no one stopped to help, neither did a security gyard standing nearby in front of jewelry store. I was terrified and thought they would kill me. They didn't know if I was Gay but that's the first thing these homphobic psychopaths think of when confronted with someone who doesn't cave into their bullying. Glass was flying all over the place and the police came and these thugs ran. It was one of the worst experiences I've even gone through and something I'll never forget.

[GEM-592]

I was pointing to the politics of the problem only, which I thought was clear.

You assume alot about me personally, I'll leave it at that.

[GEM-592]

... so that's a vote for 2 ... thank you.

[carsntrucks]

I'm sorry to hear that. No sane person would be happy about that. But last I checked, I wasn't one of those men calling you homophobic slurs. I don't *owe* you or any other gay person anything but the same respect and consideration I try to give everyone.

[superstition]

The bottom line is that Obama chose to embrace heterosexism, apparently for political expediency.

He once supported us fully, saying that our marriages should be recognized.

Saying now that gay relationships are inferior says that we are inferior. That is heterosexism.

People tried to rationalize this by saying he couldn't have won the Presidency without being heterosexist. I disagree. Cheney said, in the 2000 VP debate, that he supported same-sex marriage. He said it again during the 2004 campaign. While Cheney wasn't the presidential candidate, there was no great controversy over his remarks, despite the fact that he even publicly broke with Bush over FMA and represented a more overtly homophobic party.

Obama could have been elected without heterosexism and he could be leading right now without it. Instead, he has chosen to do things like argue to the Supreme Court that firing gay soldiers for no reason other than their sexual orientation is a good thing for the military.

[PlaceboStudman]

You expected any less from a career politician??

[Indra]

You are so wrong. Obama does not agree with it because it is a matter of changing definition not of rights. When the definition gets changed it will be a matter of rights. You heterosexism charge is not correct. If you do not get your way you simply deride a person. This is not acceptable. I have nothing against gay marriage but you need better arguments. If you don't get better arguments you will lose the game. very simple.

[diogenes1967]

"(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"

Uh, the definition is already changed. Next excuse, please.

[oafishcad]

If you're saying gay people are treated equally, you are not telling the truth. And you know it.

[tbrnotb]

Who the heck is deriding who here?

Who is denying rights here?

If marriage is so gosh darned sacred....­.then treat it like it's something special. You heteros change marriage partners like it's nothing. And then turn to us and preach about what sacred.

You, my dear are so wrong.

[LeftRight]

Um.... Civil rights are being denied because of your "definition", so you need to get over it and either help with the rights, or get out of the way!

[superstition]

"I believe with all my heart that the president is in the right place on all our issues and that we will see more progress in an Obama administration than we could hope for."

Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

He Was For It Before He Was Against It
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/obamas-gay-marriage-flip_b_158009.html

Really? I don't see evidence that we're going to see anything but further retreat.

Aaron Belkin: Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html

Is empathy going to resurrect the careers of Victor Fehrenbach, Dan Choi, et cetera? If so, it's been time for it since his election.

[PlaceboStudman]

Blame Congress for that one. DADT is currently in Congress, but dead in committee, and *may* be reintroduced next year.

Sorry can't blame the president anymore on that one. The ball is squarely now in Congress's court

[superstition]

Truman integrated the military racially without any legislatio­n/Congress­ional action.

He used executive order.

[SiberianRat]

I don't think it's "dead" in committee, but it doesn't seem to be moving at lightning speed by any means.

[LeftRight]

Obama could have stopped it for his whole term in office to wait out Congress with a simple executive order, just like he said he would shut down Gitmo!

[M1]

This article hits the nail on the head! It is exactly why I will not be voting for Obama again. The damage caused by, what I believe is a calculated coldness or lack of empathy to Gay Americans, is unacceptable to me. Obama would have to admit and apologize for his lack of empathy before I will ever considering giving him another vote or dime or time walking neighborhoods.

[PlaceboStudman]

We need to give him (and Congress) a reason to feel empathy. We need to give people a reason to care. Not just our politicians, but everyone. We need to put names and faces on what are largely big generic stereotypes that people have. We need to show them that we are not a threat to anyone just because we love someone else, or feel differently than the majority expect us to. We need to show the world that we are just like everybody else, and break through the barriers of fear and ignorance that are based in apathy. Give a people a reason to care and they will want to learn and when they want to learn, they will learn, and that will help us help them change. From the president down to everyman

[superstition]

This is 2009. Ellen has been on TV for a long time.

We've known scientifically since 1956 that homosexuality isn't a disorder. That fact alone makes it impossible to rationally discriminate. It means gay people aren't inferior.

[oafishcad]

So, gays need to go begging others for equality. No, equality is God given. The majority will always have the power, they will never have the right.

[201curzonst]

So will you vote Republican? I'm disappointed by Obama too, but considering the alternativ­e...

Obama comes from a marginalized community, but one which has consistently voted for the Democrats for over 40 years. Not because the needs of Black Americans were necessarily addressed by the Dems, but because inaction trumped active discrimination. Not nice, but true.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Here's the low-down on a real "hate crimes" bill that we can all support:
http://washingtonindependent.com/46097/pro-gun-gay-groups-take-aim-at-hate-crimes-bill

[impik]

Maybe if gay activists would stop calling him shocking names like "bi/got, cow/ard, pathological li/ar" because after 5 months in office he's yet to repeal DADT, the whole atmosphere will be different.

[PlaceboStudman]

There is such a disconnect between Washington and the general public that I doubt that the president really cares much about the sniping of a few disgruntled bloggers and protesters. Right now, the key, if we want these bills to pass is to lobby congress and get them to do what we elected them for, to serve our needs. Those who resort to name calling should largely be ignored

[AnotherTry]

Blame the victim much?

[diogenes1967]

I don't think Obama himself is like that but many Obama supporters are. Obama specifically catered to the homophobia of that part of the base and doen't know how to put the genie back in the bottle.

The bigger factor is that the gay community was lied to and scapegoated by Bill Clinton and there seems to be a similar pattern here.

[superstition]

Clinton tried to obliterate the ban entirely. Guess what happened?

The Republican military brass represented in the media chiefly by Colin Powell mutinied. Powell not only said he would resign in protest but suggested that other service members resign as well. That's mutiny, and of course no one held him accountable. The "nice guy Powell" image is still being promulgated today, despite his exposure during this sad mutinous exercise and his promotion of Bush's Iraq debacle.

Guess who supported the Republicans? The "conserva-Dems". Yes, as Rachel Maddow discussed, without the support of "conservative" Democrats, the ban would have been lifted and Don't Ask Don't Tell wouldn't have existed.

And yet, guess who gets blamed? Clinton -- the guy who tried to lift the ban in the first place.

[dm10003]

don't judge the cause by the negative styly points you're so concerned about. you seem much more concerned about us putting a foot wrong than anything that's way out of line from homophobia.

obama is a big boy and can handle it. if those names are so shocking, then you should be active in anti-gay bullying, violence, assault, and murder.

[SiberianRat]

impik, as is often the case, you're right on target.

[Trinite]

Excellent discussion. Obama needs to display empathy in order to remove the growing suspicion among many that he harbors unacknowledged homophobia and bigotry as regards sexual diversity. It is so odd. His problems began with his Rick Warren inaugural address fiasco, which was a direct slap in the face of the GLBT community, and he has not moved forward appreciably in any kind of a positive response to sexual diversity since then. My suspicion is that he is an unacknowledged, perhaps unaware, homophobic bigot who is secretly ashamed of his real debt to GLBT persons for his election and is also ashamed of his inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that debt.
Whatever he may ultimately do to acknowledge, support and promote the civil rights of GLBT persons is fast becoming too little too late, even should a monumental outcome be achieved by his administration. Empathy? Not yet. His heart is not in it.

[PlaceboStudman]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, as much as we are angry and disappointed in President Obama for not speaking about this issue, calling him a latent homophobe is going too far. His motivations are purely political in nature (unfortunately) and not personal. I do believe that if he went with his gut and actually did what his heart told him to do, and wasn't so wrapped up in the political power games, I believe he'd be a much more empathetic president.

And besides, you can not put all of the blame here on the president. He is one man of hundreds who is controlling this issue. Right now, the bill to repeal DADT is in congress, but is dead in committee. That has NOTHING to do with him. That has to do with congress. Stop blaming him and accusing him of what might or might not be in his heart, when you have no idea what is in his heart.

If you want to see real action, then lobby congress. Push them to get things done. That way, if you happen to be right, and I highly doubt you are, then the presidents personal beliefs won't matter. He will do what is the politically expedient thing and sign the bills that come out of congress. But the ball is squarely in Congress's hands right now, so they are the ones to blame

[AnotherTry]

They've ignored us for literally decades. Why should they start listening now? What are we going to do, vote republican? Obviously not. We have no place else to go and they know it.

[gaydm]

I fully agree with your assessment of what is happening with regard to Obama. I will not go so far as to call him homophobic either. I do believe that we need to give the man more space to set things up for our full equal rights. You are correct in saying we need to put more pressure on BOTH houses of Congress to get things moving. I hope that the mid term elections will bring more civil minded lawmakers on board for later in Obama's first term.
I too am anxious, as I have had my hopes dashed one to many times over the years, but I am a patient man.

[SiberianRat]

Yep, I agree. This also proves impik's point above.

[oafishcad]

Obama could integrate gays into the military with an executive order, as Truman did when he integrated the races. Gays are Obama's group to shove under the bus to keep his political juice high. Maybe someday he'll keep his promises to gays. Like with Clinton, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[democritus]

Hello. The most important civil rights issue of our time is the phony War on Drugs, actually a war on citizens. When there are 800,000 people arrested every year for being gay, then it will be a more important issue.

It's about the freedom, stupid.

[stuporman]

we ALL need freedom.

[PlaceboStudman]

Human rights for ALL, not *just* those wrongly incarcerated by the state because of unjust disciminatory drug laws but for ALL those who are wrongly incarcerated by society who live in prisons of people's hatred and bigotry as a reflection of thier (the social "Jailers") own apathy and ignorance

[Shawn Fraine]

Yeah! never mind how gays have been persecuted throughout the last 2000 years. The hangings, being burned alive, and being thrown into concentration camps. Heck, why bother, they're only second class citizens in a country that boasts of freedom and equality.

(I'm a gay veteran...­so you'll have to excuse my sarcasm)

[dm10003]

ANOTHER excuse to belittle the lgbt cause.

[SiberianRat]

Yep, that's a problem for sure. I personally think though that education is the civil rights issue of our time. This is important, but ALL people, gay and straight, deserve a good education; moreover, it's vital to our future as a country.