The New Republic

Sorry Gary, you had me until don't vote for... I will not give one red cent to Obama, nor will I volunteer for him again as I did in 2008 unless he keeps his promises to repeal DADT, and repeal at least part of DOMA. However, I will donate to Progressive Democrats, especially Progressive challengers to Specter, Lieberman, and others. Don't get bitter, get angry and fight effectively. Obama doesn't need our votes, but those we can support with our volunteerism and our money will lean on him to remember us if we act strategically. Third parties are a pipedream in our system, so this is our best alternative.

- JT

July 6, 2009 at 3:20pm

Sorry Timothy, I disagree. There is no way that I will ever forgive or forget what the Republicans did to this country. In our national history, due to our first past the post majority system, no third party candidate has ever done anything but act at best as a spoiler in a presidential election, so the Greens are out. I have no intention of making the perfect be the enemy of the good. Obama has my vote, but progressive Congressional Dems and gay marriage initiatives at the states have my money and my volunteerism. The way to make Obama keep his promises is to support those who can help force him to change. Trying to force Obama to change by supporting Republicans is a fool's errand.

- JT

July 6, 2009 at 3:24pm

One point Steve, gay marriage is not a luxury, it is a civil right. It is not important to you or to a lot of people, but civil rights are usually not important to those affected by them. Sad but true I guess, a sad reflection on bigotry and fear. Increasing state by state recognition of gay marriage is going to coincide with life going on as it has for the majority. So, as states increasingly legalize gay marriage, and discover that the sky is not falling, this issue will become less controversial. However, that is not to say that gay Democrats are not better off supporting ballot initiatives and court battles to defend and advance our rights then we are spending our money on and volunteering for ungrateful democrats like Obama has proven to be.

- JT

July 6, 2009 at 3:30pm

I think the mistake is starting with your high regard for Obama. Obama has not earned this regard on one hand, and not your disapointment on the other. By setting the standards too high on one hand and than launching in unreasonable criticism on the other, it creates a no win situation.

- Craig

July 6, 2009 at 3:58pm

Timothy's assessment of Obama's position (and disposition) is closest to spot-on, imo. We (i.e., lgbt's) don't factor in his calculus, to bring change, because he sees nothing needs to change for change to happen, whatever the change may be. No doubt he expects our situation to improve, so he isn't troubled that things might worsen overall. Moreover, he empathizes with our struggle, as struggle that is legitimate and warranted. Personally - I'll be blunt - I don't think cares much for us, that is, our 'lifestyle.' Gay sex (especially male gay sex) is distasteful, aesthetically displeasing, and I'd bet offensive in terms of what appears to him a disregard if not a disfunction that we still can't (or won't) change our behavior which tends to risky sex. That's a lot to assume, I grant you. But not so hard to believe. Which says nothing about his ability to 'relate' to us in personal encounter. It's no skin off his nose, either, that we fail to read his exaggerated promises to us as just exaggerated. He shouldn't need to point out to us that he's a leader, not a saint. (Morally, we could do with a saint who teaches by example as much as profession concerning our [sexual] behavior, he might reason.) Though I worked for his election and gave many times more money than I could really afford, at no time have I really liked the guy, let alone loved him. I respect him, greatly in fact, and I believe his goals for the most part are consonant with my own for our nation. Frankly, at the same time I think he's a homophobe, pure and simple, not the hating kind, instead the disregarding kind. Michelle is so cool, I love Sasha and Malia what I know of him, Bo is adorable. But Papa Obama, he's ok, even though his attitude stinks and he's pretty slow and rigid about real life stuff.

- tomeg

July 6, 2009 at 4:00pm

Instead of asking Obama to allow gays to serve in the military why don't we ask those currently serving in combat. Those who are directly impacted should have the say.

- BobSR

July 6, 2009 at 6:35pm

I agree with many of the comments above. The country is falling apart economically, half the country is out of work, and our soldiers are dying in a useless war over in Iraq. With all that going on, do you really expect me to get excited about gay rights? Right now that's at the bottom of the list of issues I care about. Obama knows that most Americans feel this way, which is why he won't go near the issue for a long time, if ever. Speaking of people and how they feel, there's another reason why Obama won't touch the issue. I don't care what Gallup says; I simply do not trust those polls. If gay rights were really so popular, then why do state supreme courts have to keep imposing gay marriage? Why do so many anti-gay-marriage ballot iniatives keep cropping up? Obama's no fool. He knows that most of the country is uncomfortable with homosexuality, so if he did something as huge as repeal DOMA then the voters would probably shift back to the Republicans in the next election. There is no way he would risk that when he wants to get so many other issues passed. One final point: I agree with Thommie (above). If gays want to be accepted as "ordinary Americans," then they should stop focusing on their narrow self-interest and start lobbying for issues that affect most Americans, such as better health care.

- Lolly

July 6, 2009 at 6:37pm

correction: "We (lgbt's) don't factor in [Obama's] calculus for change because he sees nothing that needs changing. He trusts we will take care of ourselves and our political future well enough without his assistance or interference. And society's attitudes and customs will change at their own rate, which won't necessarily be ours." JT, as much as I want gay marriage to be instituted as quickly as possible, and I don't consider it a luxury, I'm not persuaded yet that it is a civil right we are due. Marriage isn't anybody's civil right as I see it. It is a customary civil arrangement, between a man and a woman, that is legally recognized (and to a considerable degree subsidized) by our society, as by most Western societies. So it is more a question of benefits being denied us because we don't qualify to receive them. Theoretically the government could forbid marriage altogether and discontinue the benefits married people receive, but of course there might follow a tumultuous rebellion, with justification. A state or nation has the right to deny anyone (or ones) a petition of marriage, or set whatever criteria it chooses for a marriage to qualify for recognition and sanction. That's the societal participation in an arrangement between individuals. We always have the civil right to appeal a denial of state recognition of gay marriage, but the state isn't obligated to accept it. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I regret that it is causing so many people so much pain not to be allowed to marry. We can win that recognition but we would be in a better position to obtain recognition if we could clearly identify in what ways society would benefit by recognizing us.

- tomeg

July 6, 2009 at 10:22pm

Obama is doing as he always has done. He's got bigger debts to pay off than the Gay Community. He's got to find plum appointments for another swath of his big money donors. He's got to convince Americans that it's just fine for the Insurance/Medical/Drug lobbies to write the new healthcare legislation. If you want him to pay attention to you, just prove you'll cost him $ or significant votes, and the brass ring is yours. If you think Obama has ever been motivated by doing the right thing, go and put on your Hope and Change button, and wish really, really hard. That laughing sound? It's the Obama gang laughing all the way to the bank, which is situated right at the end of the Chigago Way.

- LDW

July 7, 2009 at 12:54am

Still not sure why y'all are so high on that stimulus. *A* stimulus, maybe, but the "it's not pork if we give it to the states and wash our hands of it" debtasaurus? Anyway, Lolly above is a good example of why the editors are right on this one. Unemployment, while distressing, has gone up 3 points, not 43, and Iraq 2009 is nothing like Iraq 2005. And yes, like during the civil rights movement in the 1960's, the courts are ahead of the voters -- civil rights often involve protecting the minority. But LBJ's downfall was Vietnam, not civil rights, and regardless, political success is hardly a reason to want Obama to turn into Nixon.

- Lymon1

July 7, 2009 at 5:58am

How much longer till you turn on Obama, the way you turned on Carter three decades ago?

- Juan Jose Morales

July 7, 2009 at 6:12am

Like the Iowa Supreme Court but on the national level, I consider DADT and DOMA violations of the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, Congress can only cope with so many major initiatives at one time, and each battle might make the next one more difficult, especially if it spills over into the 2010 Congressional campaign. In that vein, I support Obama's decision that after the stimulus and budget, health care reform must get done first, even if that means that gay rights issues are delayed until the second half of this term. If universal health care can be realized, gay and lesbian citizens, along with everyone else, will be the beneficiaries. I get that this seems harsh to gays and lesbians, some of whom might feel betrayed, but an administration simply cannot do everything first, and IMHO health care must be first.

- JackR

July 7, 2009 at 9:49am

gary, Think of winning the Presidency as a game of tug-of-war; to say, "I'm not going to pull to the left anymore because some people on my side don't want to pull as far left as I do," is a recipe for losing. Name-calling and taking your marbles home with you is a foolish and childish response to your lack of immediate gratification in the matter of gay rights. Obama has been in office a few months with the most challenging agenda of major issues facing a President in almost a century. Don't gay people also suffer from the economy doing poorly? Do they want universal health care? Do they stand to benefit like other Americans from an improved energy policy? Do they benefit as much as other Americans when our foreign relations improve? Are they likely to benefit down the road from the appointment of moderate to liberal judges in the Supreme Court? Obama has to improve the lot of all (including gay) Americans, and will have to focus initially on issues that serve everyone. If Obama were to squander his political capital on gay civil rights, and then not be able to pass other far reaching legislation, and perhaps fail to be re-elected, would that really best serve the interests of the gay community?

- kerFuFFler

July 7, 2009 at 11:41am

JackR, If the US Supreme Court should find that DADT and DOMA violate the equal protection clause I certainly won't object. I agree that Obama has much more urgent business, and besides I think his intervention might prove more a problem for himself and lgbt's than a help. My point is we should get over feeling betrayed and accept that Obama only generally supports us, but he does not intend nor will he do anything for us he isn't forced to do, and if we force his hand he will abandon us outright. He's not our friend in anything substantive, and he may prove an enemy. Still, I support him enthusiastically because there is so much he can do for us indirectly, and the real work on our behalf is (as it should be) ours to do anyway. Juan Jose Morales, I agree liberals should not ditch Obama as we did Carter for there is

-

July 7, 2009 at 1:00pm

Obama risks not being re-elected if he backs same-sex marriage. In fact, he is unlikely to be re-elected if he backs it. Question: is it irrational to think marriage is the exclusive province of couples who have an ideal or actual capacity to procreate? (Ideal capacity: what opposite-sex couples alone have when their bodily organs aren't functioning normally.) If it's not irrational, same-sex marriage isn't necessarily required in the name of equality.

- Reginald

July 7, 2009 at 1:40pm

To kerFuffler, who wrote, "If Obama were to squander his political capital on gay civil rights, and then not be able to pass other far reaching legislation" and to all the other posting similar comments... Obama has so far handed over the stimulus package to Congress to divvy up as they saw fit, in the biggest pork barrel extravaganza in American history. This was a stimulus package without direction, where the majority of the money has gone to line the already full pockets of planners and consultants and lawyers and unemployment figures have GROWN, not diminished. Obama bailed out Wall Street, and mostly let the guilty keep their ill-gotten gains. Obama let the Banking and Financial industries write their own financial regulation legislation, most of which won't even come into effect until after 2010. Obama has taken single payer healthcare off the table and is letting the Insurance/Drug/Medical lobbyists write the new Obamacare legistlation. GET IT??? He doesn’t care about the campaign promises he made to be on the side of ordinary Americans and minorities. Obama's gang is all about the truly big players, the money bags and the power brokers. Always was. Always will be. Obama has always worked for himself and never for the constituents who voted for him. Obama will only ever make minor concessions to various groups who worked so hard for him during the elections. After considerable pressure, he moved to allow Federal funding of stem cell research, especially since some prominent Republicans were heading up the push to allow this. But Gays? He still thinks you have no where else to go, except to the back of the bus. He could stop the enforcement of DADT within a day, and that same day he could set up a committee to draft federal equality legislation. Perhaps he doesn't want to alienate his Black Bigot churchgoers, like the California contingent who helped pass Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, and who don't think discrimination against gays is at all the same as racial discrimination. This is the same demographic who provided the thugs to cheat in the Caucuses, and who he can count on to give him more than ninety percent of their vote. Obama, who touted himself as a ‘community organizer’, has never cared about the community he supposedly represented. In Chigago, while the crook Rezko was helping Obama to get a barely legal deal on a mansion, Obama claimed he knew nothing about the scandalously miserable living conditions in Rezko owned properties in Obama’s district. All the Chicago papers carried front page stories about this, but Obama claimed he never knew anything about the matter. But Obama gave a few Hope and Change teleprompter speeches, and people fell all over themselves, imagining they were entering some new post-racial era that would usher in a world diametrically opposite to the Bush kingdom. Obama learned his politics in Chicago, and his transformation into Mr. Clean stops at the teleprompter. That’s the Chicago way. If you want to move Obama, you've got to make him pay attention to the things he cares about. Money and votes. Period. Full Stop.

- LDW

July 7, 2009 at 2:36pm

>"Wow. First there was Philip Glass. Then Scott Beauchamp" I think you mean Stephen Glass. As Philip Glass is a great composer, and perhaps if one asked, is a strong supporter of gay equality (and a very nice man too).

- Chuck

July 7, 2009 at 7:14pm

In my last comment (30 of 33- no name) I wrote: " [Obama's] not our friend in anything substantive, and he may prove an enemy." That went too far. I don't think Obama is or ever will be an enemy of lgbt's. But neither is he a friend we can count on, any more than Clinton was.

- tomeg

July 8, 2009 at 12:52pm

Wait a minute, TNR- this departure from your usual Obama-worshiping script is utterly uncalled for. Are you actually making an attempt to think and write critically?

- Amazed

July 9, 2009 at 6:24pm