It isn’t just the Gay Folks who are getting a bit testy, as the video below indicates, but those of us Gay people who DID buy that Obama was going to do something for us (I don’t know what came over them) sure had something to say in the March on Oct. 10th (H/T to Logistics Monster for the video):

I came across this article by B. Daniel Blatt recently that addresses the frustrations of the GLBT community with Barack Obama, Gay Community Increasingly at Odds with Democrats. Considering the constant pandering, all talk, and no action, it is easy to see why we would be inreasingly discontented with Obama (those who were content with him in the first place, that is).

Mr. Blatt comes from a different political position than I do, and I appreciate his take here:

Perhaps the easiest thing about being a gay conservative is that we expect less from our elected leaders than do our left-of-center counterparts. Republican politicians don’t promise us the moon and stars in their campaigns, so we’re not disappointed when they don’t bestow such lofty gifts on our community once elected.

Huh. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Interesting. He continues:

For gay Democrats, however, it’s a different story. They are repeatedly disappointed when their politicians do not follow through on the campaign pledges they make to our community.

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but just a year later, he backpedaled on that promise. After he clumsily tried to act on that promise in the first few days of his administration, that Democrat realized he might suffer politically should he sign an executive order repealing the ban. At the time, the president’s signature was all that was required to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Facing a firestorm of opposition from the military and Congress, Clinton relented and signed a supposed compromise policy, the legislation which became known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Gays could now serve, provided they didn’t self-identify as gay. Now the ban on open service is codified, requiring an act of Congress to be repealed.

This would not be the last time Clinton would sign legislation upsetting gay people who so enthusiastically backed him in 1992.

In the dead of night on September 20, 1996, after receiving the endorsement of the left-leaning gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing one state to bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed in a different state while defining marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. Although its then-leaders denounced the action, HRC did not rescind its endorsement of the then-Democratic incumbent.

Now, you know, I love me my Bill Clinton. Not as much as his wife, mind you, but still…It’s a different day now than it was even then:

Perhaps with that bit of history in mind, the current Democratic President Barack Obama thought that by currying favor with this bastion of the gay Washington, D.C., establishment, he could silence the growing chorus of criticism from erstwhile gay supporters upset by his failure to act on his campaign promises to repeal those two bills. This past Saturday, the president addressed HRC’s annual dinner in Washington where he reiterated his campaign pledges:

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. … We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. … And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

As a reminder, I severed my long-standing membership with the HRC after it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, one a proven advocate for the GLBT community, and one who is not. Wanna guess which one is which? Yep – Hillary is, Obamais not. That doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the folks at the HRC dinner, but other people are getting it:

That may have earned him a standing ovation inside the auditorium, but it did not quiet the criticism outside. Indeed, if anything, the speech only served to increase its volume. Left-of-center lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding took umbrage at the president’s failure to offer a timeline for repeal:

The low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our president was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

Others found different reasons to call the speech “a fail.” Left-wing gay bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage said it sounded more like a campaign speech than a presidential address, with the latter offering, “Sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.” They were not alone. The New York Times reported that one reader of the Bilerico Project quipped in a comment to that gay blog, “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing.”

And you know how much I just LOVE Andrew Sullivan (that was major snark – he has attacked yours truly a number of times, tongue in cheek nominating me for the Michael Moore Award. I suppose I could do worse.). He was a major Obama sycophant, singing his praises left and right, downright bubbly in his support of The One. THat is al to say, I have little sympathy that he is now so disenchanted with Obama. Maybe he could have done a little more research – check that – maybe he could have done SOME research into Obama before throwing his weight behind him. Just a thought.

And he is not the only Obama supporter and GLBT community member who is now frustrated with Obama:

John Aravosis of Americablog was less restrained in his reaction to the speech:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. … It is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn’t do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen.

By this measure, the incumbent Democrat is a lot like the last Democrat to sit in the White House: both seek to avoid controversy, particularly on gay issues. And yet, in seeking to avoid controversy in the general population, Obama has further stirred the pot in the gay community. Even some of his most zealous defenders on the gay left have refused to cut him any slack for his failure to move forward on repealing DADT and DOMA.

Well, and they shouldn’t cut him any slack. Then again, IMHO, they should have pushed harder for a real advocate – Hillary – than the guy they thought was “cool,” or whatever the hell they were thinking – if indeed they were. Blatt continues:

And these outraged voices on the gay left have a greater opportunity today to make public their views than did their counterparts in the Clinton era. Many of them blog, some for heavily trafficked sites. These bloggers have prevented the voices of the establishment gay organizations from dominating the discourse (as they had in years past). When HRC’s president Joe Solmonese made excuses for the president’ s inaction, these bloggers were quick to take him to task.

Due in large part to the integrity of these gay left bloggers, a “schism,” as Spaulding puts it, has opened up between “Gay Inc. [and] the grassroots”. The blogosphere, in short, has changed everything. Gay Inc. (to use Spaulding’s epithet for the establishment gay organizations) no longer reigns supreme as the public voice of the gay community.

It has been supplemented by voices less submissive to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Blogs have given disgruntled Democrats a larger megaphone with which to express their disappointment with a party whose leaders have long assumed that gay voters would remain in their camp even if they didn’t act on their campaign promises.

And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.

Sure, Obama made a small move recently and nominated Clifford Stanley, a 33 year Marine two star general (retired), to this position:

President Barack Obama intends to nominate Dr. Clifford L. Stanley as the undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — the position within the Defense Department that oversees the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“He is likely to be the president’s key Pentagon player in the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate and will be critical for the president in getting military uniform buy-in,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Well, that’s just peachy keen. I don’t know how long it will take to get him confirmed, but it’s just another step. Honestly – HOW much longer are we going to have to debate this horrible legislation?? Did Obama not promise to abolish DADT shortly after he took office? He has a Super Majority, for pete’s sake, and at the very least, he could employ a stay on DADT, but no (as of Oct.17, 459 service members fired under DADT).

But this is a bigger picture issue than DADT, or even DOMA, for that matter. It’s how an entire segment of the population is treated disparately that is the issue.

Along those lines, I think a number of people have started to realize that Democrats do a lot of talking, very little listening, and even less fulfilling of campaign promises made, GLBT people included. Perhaps we can learn that one has to look at more than the letter beside the name, and really look at the candidate. For instance, John McCain stood up for a friend who came out, extending his support to him. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned with, and consistently surrounded himself with, homophobes (McClurkin, Meeks, and Kmiec, to name just three). That is to say, maybe, and I include myself in this, we need to look beyond the letters beside the names, and really look at the people, their character, their words, and how they match up with their actions. Maybe then, these people who gave of their money, and their VOTE, wouldn’t be so disappointed, and frustrated, now. Just a thought.

“Gays, Lesbians Rally Over Bar Raid in Fort Worth”

About 18 hours after officers with the Fort Worth Police Department and agents with the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission raided a Fort Worth gay bar, about 150 to 200 people gathered on the steps of the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth Sunday night, June 28, to protest the raid.

Sources have said that seven people were arrested in the raid although witnesses at the scene said many more people were handcuffed with zip ties and taken out of the bar.

One man, identified by his sister as Chad Gibson, was in the intensive care unit at Fort Worth’s JPS Hospital with bleeding in his brain after officers threw him to the ground and used zip-ties to handcuff him.

The raid happened on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion.

Well, that is some way to mark this inauspicious occasion, isn’t it?? To basically reenact it?? What in the world prompted this, is my question, and others, as well:

Joel Burns, Fort Worth’s first and only openly gay City Council member, was in Houston for the weekend, but came back to Fort Worth in time for the rally at the courthouse.

“We want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws of ordinances of our great state and city will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement,” Burns said at the rally, reading from a prepared statement.

“We consider this to be part of ‘The Fort Worth Way’ here. As elected representatives of the city of Fort Worth, we are calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the city of Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning,” Burns said.

In an e-mail communication before noon on Sunday, Burns said he had already talked with Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead who had promised an investigation into the matter. Burns also said at that time that Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Hicks, who represents the district where the Rainbow Lounge is located, and City Manager Dale A. Fisseler were also already aware of the situation.

Noting that the rainbow Lounge raid came on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Burns said at the rally, “Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all its citizens are protected.”

Well, yeah, maybe so, but AFTER the fact. How about the citizens being protected in the FIRST place instead of being beaten and handcuffed? Just asking. But Representative Burns is dealing on that:

Burns said he is working with Mayor Mike Moncrief, Halstead, the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and “our state legislative colleagues” to get “a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.”

Burns added, “Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And known that the GLBT community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

“Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and we are all working aggressively toward that end,” Burns said.

Lisa Thomas, Burns’ appointee to the city’s Human Relations Commission, also spoke at the rally, as did Todd Camp and Chuck Potter, two men who were at the bar when the raid happened and who were the primary organizers of Sunday’s two rallies.

Camp, referring to eyewitness accounts of the raid and to photographs that Potter took as the raid was occurring, said at the rally that “evidence demonstrates that the Fort Worth Police Department and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissioner over-reacted and used excessive, perhaps brutal force … .”

“The circumstances of the police action strongly suggest that elements of the law enforcement community selectively targeted a recently opened gay and lesbian establishment for selective enforcement and harassment.”

Ya think?? Evidently!! Even their statement is a bit fishy, if you ask me:

Fort Worth police have not returned calls seeking comment placed by Dallas Voice beginning at 10 a.m. Sunday morning. However, Fort Worth police released a statement to several mainstream media outlets saying that Rainbow Lounge was one of three bars targted by six Fort Worth police officers and two TABC agents and a supervisor.

The statement said that nine people were arrested at the first two bars — the Rosedale Saloon and Cowboy Palace, both on Rosedale Avenue — and that another seven people were arrested at Rainbow Lounge.

The statement also said that “an extremely intoxicated patron made sexually explicit movements toward the police supervisor” and that person was arrested for public intoxication.

A second “intoxicated individual” was arrested for public intoxication after making “sexually explicit movements towards another officer,” and a third person assaulted a TABC agent by grabbing his groin. That man was escorted outside and arrested for public intoxication, but was released to paramedics because of his “extreme intoxication” and the fact that he was vomiting repeatedly.

The statement said that while some officers were outside dealing with the vomiting suspect, another officer inside requested assistance in handling an intoxicated patron who was resisting arrest, and that this person was “placed on the ground to control and apprehend him.”

This person was apparently Chad Gibson, who was knocked unconscious and is now hospitalized with a brain injury.

Eyewitnesses to that incident said Gibson, who is “maybe 160 pounds soaking wet,” did not resist arrest but that he did stumble after the first officer grabbed his arm.

Rainbow Lounge owner J.R. Schrock said claims that patrons made sexual advances to the officers and that one patron groped an officer were lies.

“The groping of the police officer — really? We’re gay, but we’re not dumb,” Schrock said to the crowd that gathered at the bar Sunday afternoon. “That is a lie, and I am appalled by it.

“They treat us like outcasts. But even outcasts have a time to shine, and this is it,” Schrock said, pledging that he would not be “scared away” or intimidated into closing his bar. (E-mail nash@dallasvoice.com)

Okay, is it REALLY a surprise that people might be intoxicated AT A BAR??? I mean, I’m no rocket scientist, but that just doesn’t seem so far out of the realm of possibilities.

I reckon it’s a pretty easy defense for the excessive use of force the police used to say these guys “groped” them. Too many people would automatically accept that as more than enough reason to handcuff them, or throw them to the ground and cause a brain injury. An appeal to homophobia to justify one’s actions still works in this country. Sad to say, but true. Just look at the recent statement by Obama’s Justice Department on DOMA.

But I gotta say, the whole thing seems a bit suspect, so personally, I’m not buying what they’re selling. I am glad the GLBT community has a representative on their side in the Fort Worth area, but I have to say, it sure will be nice when the day comes that these kinds of things no longer happen at ALL. In the meantime, I am glad Mr. Shrock is keeping his bar open. More power to him. I hope this is the last of the police he will see in his bar, unless he calls them himself.

No, this latest attempt was more of the same kind of response Obama had when the GLBT community was up in arms over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give his Inauguration Prayer. After days and days of people complaining to the high heavens, he decided to have Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop, give the invocation at the Sunday Inaugural Concert event preceding the Inauguration. Except get this – he had HBO take Robinson OUT of the piece they aired on tv. I am not making this up. They couldn’t believe it, either. Eventually, it was agreed he would appear in later broadcasts, but not the one aired at the time.

So, after his backtrack on DADT, despite his campaign assurances; after his backstabbing on DOMA, in which it was made QUITE clear by Obama just who is worthy to be married (and it ain’t me); we get this half hearted attempt on his part to make it up to us. So, he will give SOME benefits to the partners of GLB employees except – wait for it – HEALTH CARE (and a H/T to alert NQ Reader, Mary, for this). You know, the big huge issue he’s going to be pushing on the All Barack Company propaganda channel “forum” coming up, the one he thinks should be for ALL people – except the partners of GLB Federal employees. As one friend (who’s heterosexual, by the way) said, it looks to her like all he’s willing to give in terms of Federal Benefits is moving expenses, to which she responded, “whoopee.”

Here’s a panel discussion on this very topic on Anderson Cooper 360 (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this):

C’mon, you gotta admit the absurdity of that is just laughable. Except that, once again, we are talking about real people and real lives, and one group still getting the short end of the stick.

Once, just ONCE, wouldn’t it be nice if Obama actually walked the walk without being FORCED to do something to cover his backside after he screwed up? To do the just act, the right act, the honorable act without all of the drama? Without trashing someone first, like in the DOMA brief? Or the brief to the Supreme Court over DADT? I’m just sayin’ – it would be nice if he were that kind of person. But he isn’t. And once again, we are talking about Obama’s lame attempts to placate us, to try and keep a voting bloc together. That may work for some (Kool-Aide drinking) people, but not for most of us.

All his false promises, and half hearted attempts, won’t change that.

Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

Oh, boy. Well, Obama recently showed his true colors on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (see this, this, and this) and he has REALLY shown them on “DOMA” (Defense of Marriage Act). I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but hey – it IS Pride month, after all, and what better time to stab a community in the back than the month you proclaim for them? At least that seems to be Obama’s Opposite World logic.

Before I go any further, let me just say, for the gazillionith time: I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. All of us who didn’t just blow off his anti-gay associates, those of us who saw his saying one thing and doing another, without making excuses (”well, yes, I am disappointed, but…” Those of us who paid attention to his close associates KNEW this was coming. Once again, for all of you groups who supported Obama, who just KNEW he was going to bring Hope! and Change! on his little Rainbow Unicorn Pony, thus throwing the rest of us to the curb, I freakin’ told you so.

John Aravosis, lays it all out in this article, “Obama Defends DOMA In Federal Court.” Here’s a little taste of it:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

Yep. Pretty much. But we already knew that, didn’t we? When the military will gladly take people, check that – heterosexual people – with criminal records over keeping West Point grads, I think the message is clear.

I am disgusted beyond belief. Not surprised, mind you, just disgusted. And angry.

There’s more, as this article highlights, “Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act.” Make sure you check out the powerful photo in this one:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed “we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” which says states are not required to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a “valid exercise of Congress’ power” that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state “shall be required” to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any “right or claim arising from such relationship.”

“Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” would be appropriate here, IF we weren’t talking about people’s LIVES. And that’s what makes this so egregious. Still disgusted beyond belief, but this time, not only with Obama, but these groups who jumped on his little American Idol bandwagon, lapping up his Teleprompter “Words, just words.” And that’s JUST what they were – words. The actions are telling the tale, and it ain’t good.

And in a related case, the DOJ weighs in on a related case, “DOJ Moves To Dismiss First Fed Gay Marriage Case“:

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on “whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

Oh, yes – he is SUCH a friend to the LGBT community – in Opposite World, that is. And this kind of backtracking, bamboozling, bullshit from Obama is precisely why I told the HRC guy who called me the other day to get me to reinstate my membership that there was no way in hell I would do that after the HRC supported Obama, and not HRC (you know, as in Hillary). He kept telling me that Obama SAID he was going to this, and Obama SAID he was going to do that. I told him Obama could say whatever he WANTED, but the fact remained he had done NOTHING yet, and his history led me to believe he wouldn’t. I just didn’t realize that in one week – within a couple of days of each other – that Obama would prove me right. And not just that he wasn’t going to do anything, but he did WORSE than that, screwing us six ways to Sunday. What I told this man at HRC as I got off the phone was, “Obama is no friend to the GLBT community.” Talk about an understatement.

Once again, I say that anyone who thought for one skinny second that Obama was going to do anything at all positive for the GLBT community was deluding themselves so they could vote for the one everyone said was the cool kid, the popular guy, the one whose razor thin resume would have been laughed at except for his marketing team who billed no experience, and no qualifications, as the Change We NEED!! Well, this is change alright, but I sure as hell don’t need it, and frankly, I resent all of those people who mindlessly voted for this man, who attacked all of us who didn’t buy his hooey from the get-go, all those people who called (and still call) us racists, and on and on and on because we didn’t swallow the Kool Aide.

So, during this Pride Month, let me just say, thanks shitloads for giving us this guy who is taking us back, no, legislating us back into the closet (a little poetic license – you know what I mean). Yep – thanks a whole lot for a whole lot of grief.

Now – what are you gonna DO about it???

As some of you know, my mother suffered a stroke recently. I am currently in my home town spending time with her and getting her house in order. As a result, I rushed a recent post on “DADT” I wrote in order to get to the nursing center in a timely fashion. Alert No Quarter reader, Ed, gently (I am not being snarky here – he really was) pointed out to me that the soldier whose actual case went before the Supreme Court was not at ALL amused at Obama’s lack of support, though the rest of my post stands as is, I think. The point is, he is dong nothing, and too many people are allowing him to WORM (What Obama Really Meant) out.

The soldier whose case was thrown out by the SCOTUS, had something to say about it, alright, and it was not a whole bunch of WORMing, as this article makes clear,

Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout. Check this out:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” (emphasis mine) upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.

I don’t want to overreach or anything, but it does sound like Pietrangelo is a tad hot under the collar, as he SHOULD be. About damn time the MSM bothered to report that not everyone is in love with Obama.

As for “DADT” and Obama’s lack of action:

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.

The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.

“EVENTUALLY”??? Just how the hell long is THAT?? I’m not buying what he’s selling, and neither is Pietrangelo:

Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

But the trouble is that the law was passed by Congress and, if Obama decided to go around the legislature, he would face political blowback. The current law allows gays to serve, so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. The legislation means that a majority of the 535 members of Congress is going to have to vote to undo the ban — and that will have its political fallout. Obama is plainly taking his cue from the 1993 fiasco, which hurt Clinton’s relationship with conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and with many in uniform.

But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”

Here’s what gripes me about this, and the other service members who have been kicked out of the military for being LGBT, including Arabic linguists, whom we could actually use right now: the military has actually lowered its enlistment standards over the past few years because of the two wars we are fighting. I am not kidding. Click HERE to read more about it. Doesn’t that just gripe you, too?

Uh, yeah, so enough with the excuses already about “DADT.” Like I said, if Obama has the time to do a videotaped message for Stephen Colbert, giving a “lawful order,” he sure can pick up the phone to call Pelosi and Reid, and tell them to push this through. Dadgummit!

And here’s another good one, courtesy of faithful reader, SF Indie, who informed me of THIS new pick by Obama,
Head Of Pro-Life* Group Gets Job At HHS (* I take issue with the term “Pro-Life, and prefer “Anti-Choice.”). Well I’ll be darned – he’s throwing NARAL, NOW, and a whole bunch of other women and women’s groups under the bus, too???? Oh, I am so, so, so surprised!!! Not, not, not:

The Obama administration has picked the former head of a pro-life Catholic organization to run faith-based and community outreach programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexia Kelley, co-founder of the liberal group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Thursday to run HHS’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (The administration wouldn’t immediately confirm that, but the Catholic Reporter published a press release from Catholics in Alliance trumpeting the announcement.) Catholics in Alliance’s main goal since Kelley helped found it in 2005 has been to emphasize the Catholic Church’s social justice teachings in the political sphere; like other progressive religious groups, it lines up with Democratic positions on health care, poverty, labor and other issues.

On abortion, the group has mostly worked to find ways to reduce demand, rather than to push laws aimed at curtailing the availability of the procedure. But its Web site makes clear that it isn’t pro-choice. “Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life — from conception until natural death,” says a frequently asked questions page.

Pro-choice activists weren’t happy: HHS oversees health care, including abortion policy, for much of the federal government. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, called it “a defeat for reason and logic.” “The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that,” he told Salon. But “to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion… really beggars belief.” The timing of the appointment — just days after abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in his Wichita, Kan., church — is likely to aggravate pro-choice groups even more. (Anti-choice organizations, though, have criticized Catholics in Alliance for giving cover to pro-choice Democrats, by attempting to shift the debate from banning abortion to simply reducing it.)

Well, golly gee – they aren’t happy with the man they chose to support over the WOMAN who has shown her resolve on this issue time and time again?? As Kathy Griffin would say, they can suck it. Again, had they BOTHERED to look at his record (or lack thereof) or his experience (or lack thereof) rather than jumping on the popularity bandwagon, they wouldn’t be so unhappy now. They brought it on themselves BY themselves.

Oh, and you’ll like this part:

Aides at the White House and HHS didn’t immediately return calls and e-mails for comment.

ROTFMLAO – really? They White House and HHS didn’t want to talk about this?? Yeah, I bet.

One last piece:

Update: A spokeswoman for Catholics in Alliance, Jennifer Goff, just sent over a statement. The group clearly wasn’t happy with the criticism from Catholics for Choice: “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward reaching common ground in order to make real progress on the moral and political challenges our country faces instead of resorting to spurious attacks launched by those who are more concerned with inflaming the culture wars than effecting positive change.”

Okey dokey. Sure. Whatever they say…

By now, I am certain everyone has heard of the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. It was a tragedy indeed, and my heart goes out to the security guard’s family, as well to those who were present at the time. But. And you knew it was coming. When President Obama comes out with a statement tout suite on the security guard’s death, and even Fox News talking about honoring this guard’s service, it makes me a bit irritated. And if you have been reading my posts of late, you know why: because Obama waited DAYS to say anything about the soldiers being gunned down in the street outside a recruiting center, men who were not just doing a job, but giving their LIVES in service to this country (and I meant that in the big picture sense – when you are in the military, it ISN’T just a job. It is your LIFE.). Bottom line is this: Private Long deserved at least as much attention as the security guard did, not to in any way, shape, or form diminish the tragic, senseless loss of life at a museum dedicated to memorializing one of the most horrific periods in world history (and it is an amazing, amazing place).

I’m just saying enough WORMing on Obama’s lack of support to our military, for those lost through an unequal law, or through a politically, religiously motivated attack on service members on our own soil. And, enough WORMing on the poor choices Obama continues to make. Enough already.

Again, big thanks to Ed and SFIndie…

Valerie Larabee, a ten-year veteran of the Air Force who retired in 1995 is proud of her service and now runs the Utah Pride Center. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear arguments in a case challenging the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (Francisco Kjolseth/The Salt Lake Tribune)

In her final year in the military, Air Force mortuary officer Valerie Larabee was called upon to care for four families grieving the suicides of fellow airmen.

“It really impacted me emotionally, but I couldn’t even go to the base chaplain to talk about it, because I was just so fearful,” she said. “I knew that he would ask, ‘Who else do you have in your life that can help comfort you?’ And I knew I couldn’t tell him.”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments Monday in a case challenging the constitutionality of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military.

Gay-rights activists, including Larabee, the director of the Utah Pride Center, decried the court’s decision, which let stand a lower court ruling in favor of the ban. They said it would permit the military to continue to treat tens of thousands of gay and lesbian service members as second-class citizens.

“I am really hopeful about how things are going in our country right now and I feel like we have some tremendous opportunities,” Larabee said. “But this is disappointing.”

She’s hopeful? Why? Does she know something we don’t? Ahem. I assume she means because of Obama, though honestly – I just continue to be boggled by this – he has done NOTHING for our community, and CONTINUES to do nothing, and people STILL think he will?? Oh, but wait – there are REASONS why we’re at the back of the bus:

Noting the ongoing wars and the nation’s floundering economy, Larabee said she understands there are other pressing matters for Congress, the White House and the nation’s highest court to consider.

“But do I think our issues are every bit as important as those? Yes, I absolutely do,” she said, adding that she wished the court would have taken up the case.

But ya know what? If our President and Congress can decide to take over our banks and our private companies in such a short amount of time, something that was NOT on the (SPOKEN) Obama agenda, why the hell haven’t they gotten to this?? I mean, really – they have a MAJORITY – they should be able to take care of this in one day, right? That is, if they really intend to do anything about it. Here, I’ll even write it for them: “Because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” treats US Citizens in an unequal manner under the law; because we are losing tremendous assets as a result of this flawed law; because being homosexual does not in anyway impede one’s ability to serve one’s country as numerous allies have well demonstrated; we hereby repeal this biased law, and will reinstate ALL military personnel dismissed under this law who wish to return to service immediately.” There ya go. I’m giving you that for free. No charge. Take it.

Ahem. Then, maybe we could get back people like Lt. Choi, and Larabee:

Larabee spent 10 years in an Air Force uniform before resigning her commission in 1995 — two years after the Clinton-era law, which was thought of by many as a step forward for gay rights — went into effect. She said that she would have liked to have continued serving her country, but she couldn’t keep living a lie.

“I would still be in the military today if I didn’t have to lie about who I am,” she said. “My military service is the thing that I’m most proud of in my life.”

Having to keep secrets from those who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in arms “ends up causing a lot of anxiety,” she said. “It’s shameful that we should have to do that.”

Uh, yeah – that’s putting it mildly. Once again, people seem to be lieve the rhetoric instead of the reality:

But gay service members might not have to keep up the pretense for long. Author Nathaniel Frank said he figures the policy might last another two years, given the country’s need for service members at a time of war and a national sentiment he believes is moving in the direction of gay rights.

In his book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America , Frank writes that gay service members have been forced out of service since the Revolutionary War. The first recorded case was in 1778, when Lt. Gotthold Enslin was kicked out of the Army in a ceremony in which an officer’s sword was broken over his head after he was caught in bed with another soldier.

Set against 230 years of military history, Frank said, Monday’s ruling is a blip on the radar.

“I wouldn’t think too much of this,” he said. “The court has a tradition of deferring to military and congressional judgment.”

He believes that President Barack Obama, though slow out of the gate on ending the ban as promised during his campaign, “still wants and needs this — and it should be played out not in the courts, but at the White House and in Congress.”

I mean, really – if Obama can take the time to give a command for Stephen Colbert’s hair to be cut, you don’t think he can place a phone call to Pelosi and Reid and tell them to get this done NOW? Please. Okay. Just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but bear in mind that this “belief” affects a lot of people.

Still, there is some light on this – not coming from Obama, of course:

There appears to be some movement on the issue in Congress, where California Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher has convinced 150 of her House colleagues to co-sponsor a bill that would end the ban. The Obama Administration, meanwhile, has made no specific move toward ending it and has declined to step in to stop the dismissal of gay service members, such as West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran Lt. Dan Choi. He is being processed for discharge from the Army after publicly disclosing that he is gay.

In an open letter to the president, the New York National Guard member took issue with the idea that his sexuality was a detriment to good order and discipline in his unit.

Much to the contrary, he wrote, “I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.”

More than 230 service members (emphasis mine) have been kicked out of the military under the policy since Obama took office, according to the Service Members Legal Defense Fund.

We have only heard about the very tip of the iceberg, as I have said before. We have only heard about people like Lt. Choi who decided to “make a federal case” out of it. TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY service members have already been kicked out. But people like Larabee use the excuse of us being in two wars as a rational for why Obama has not done anything about this yet? That is opposite world thinking, in my opinion – it is PRECISELY because we are in two wars now that we NEED to keep all of the people who are willing to fight for this country, not lose them over some ill-founded, homophobic, backwards, illogical, hateful law. We could USE an Arabic linguist like Lt. Choi at a time like this, don’t you think?

Repeal the law – it cannot POSSIBLY take that long. Like I said, look how fast Obama got some other things done he wanted done. If he wanted this law repealed already, he would have. Rather, Obama chose to not even weigh in on this to the Supreme Court. LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the rhetoric!

Here’s the bottom line to the LGBT community: STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY. Stop humiliating yourselves hoping, crossing your fingers, and wishing that Obama is going to do right by you because he said he would, or because you think he’s “dreamy.” Had you opened your eyes and paid attention to his actions (or lack thereof) over the course of his political career, or the people with whom he chooses to surround himself, you wouldn’t have picked the guy you thought was “cool.” You would have supported the person who has stood with YOU for years. But you didn’t. And here we are, no farther along for it.

Aren’t you TIRED of begging for the crumbs to drop from the table?? Aren’t you ready to be a guest at the table, where you belong?? All the excuses in the world for Obama do nothing but let him off the hook, and diminish YOU. Seriously, you, we, deserve better. Deep down inside, you must know that is true. At least I HOPE you do…

According to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

Cheney was asked at the National Press Club, “given recent events in Iowa and elsewhere, is some form of legalized gay marriage inevitable for the United States?”

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said.

“People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish,” said the laconic former veep, whose daughter Mary is lesbian, and has a son, Sam, with her partner Heather Poe.

Cheney said “…The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.”

I know that VP Cheney has a lesbian daughter and all, but let me put it to you this way, if the world’s most reactionary VP, a/k/a my name is Dick “just call me Mr. Neo Con” Cheney can make a statement as progressive as that – for him – what the hell excuse does our most progressive President evah have for not coming out in favor of gay marriage, or at the very least, at long last repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” – since he has an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and with his popularity, he clearly has the political capital to do it.

Unintentionally perhaps (tee hee), President Obama is receiving a not so gentle nudge from another quarter. Last month, our SHE-ro, Secretary of State Clinton vowed to confer “equal benefits to partners of homosexual US diplomats stationed overseas” (H/T to RRR Amy for her excellent story) and Clinton now takes this a step further:

Clinton vows to fight for gay rights abroad:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed Monday to fight for gay rights, calling for all nations to stop violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Clinton made the appeal ahead of the 40th anniversary this month of New York’s Stonewall Riots, often seen as the launch of the US gay rights movement, in which gays and lesbians fought back against police who raided their bars.

“The example set by those fighting for equal rights in the United States gives hope to men and women around the world who yearn for a better future for themselves and their loved ones,” said Clinton, a former senator from New York.

While acknowledging that gays and lesbians still had a long path to equality in the United States, Clinton deplored that gays in some parts of the world live in constant fear of arrest or violence.

“The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end,” she said.

“As secretary of state, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Under President Barack Obama, the United States has switched gears from the previous George W. Bush administration by supporting a United Nations resolution calling for the global decriminalization of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is punishable by death in seven countries — Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Clinton in her statement saluted the service of “our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in Washington and around the world.”

And what is the President doing? Tapper of ABC News reports POTUS Honors LGBT Pride Month by Not Supporting Same Sex Marriage, While Cheney Disagrees. Ouch!

Saying he’s “proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration,” President Obama issued a presidential proclamation Monday in honor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

To LGBT activists, however, some of the omissions on his proclamation likely spoke louder than the words included.

Then, Tapper offers an UPDATE at the bottom of his post:

It turns out that Mr. Obama’s claim “to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration” isn’t accurate, since by April 1993 President Bill Clinton had nominated two openly gay Assistant Secretaries.

Double ouch! Always trying to omit Bill from the equation, isn’t he? And never mind the fact that Hillary Clinton has marched in every Gay Pride parade imaginable and has spoken out for Gay rights many times.

Mentioning his administration’s international efforts to decriminalize homosexuality, the President said he would continue to “support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans” — enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gays and lesbians in the armed services.
…
That equal justice under law did not include, in the president’s recitation, perhaps the highest profile issue on the gay-dar – same sex marriage, or what LGBT activists call “marriage equality.”

Interestingly, the presidential proclamation came the same day that Mr. Obama’s conservative nemesis, former Vice President Dick Cheney, seemed to say he supported same-sex marriage as long as the rules are determined on a state-by-state basis.

I am still agape at this: Dick Cheney trumping Obama on the gay marriage issue. I mean Hillary always trumped Obama on gay rights, women’s rights, too, of course, but Cheney? Certainly, it is easy for Mr. Cheney to talk now that he’s no longer in office and can do nothing to affect policy, but he clearly enjoys this limelight and as well, being a thorn in the President’s side. And good for Jake Tapper for making sure to point out the following in his article:

President Obama today also made no mention of when or how the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would end, though he said it would be done “in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.

“As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected,” the president said. “If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit.”

But Mr. President – you are the one leaving that promise unfulfilled. What about Dan Choi? You said you wished you could do more about his situation. Sir, you are the POTUS! And what does repealing DADT have to do with our national security? But I gotta love my girl Hill for her statements, which bear repeating:

“The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end,” she said.

“As secretary of state, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

While the article quoting Secretary Clinton makes mention of the fact that this is Obama reversing Bush’s old policies, since this man has never actually participated in any Gay pride event prior to this, and gave his voters very mixed messages on Prop 8 in California, he is again making a show without the substance to back it up. Further, Bret Baier of FOX News discussed Cheney’s statements with his panel yesterday and they all felt Obama would shortly be coming under great pressure to act.

Come on, Mr. President. We’re waiting.

We’re becoming a Puritanical society, bit by bit. No same sex marriage, no domestic partnership benefits, no rights for any couple unless they’re married under the eyes of the law. What’s next? No divorce allowed? We have to protect marriage, after all. Governmental approval of choice of spouse before marriage can take place? I wonder what their criteria would be.

Here in SF, the gay community is despondent, and rightly so. (But now I’m going to rant a bit, because I’m so freaking tired of the blindness and apathy and non-accountability and hypocrisy I run into daily.)

The folks I talk to here in the Castro are very nastily taking their frustrations out on Carrie Prejean who, while I certainly don’t agree with her views, has the exact same views as the man they voted for President. Yet when I mention this, I get no response, or “that’s different”.

Mention The Pretender’s turnaround with DADT and DOMA? No response. Mention some of the anti-gay people he’s appointed to positions in his administration? No response. Mention his non-support of equal marriage rights for everyone, his non-support of the gay community, his never once having marched in any gay pride parade? No response.

But mention Carrie Prejean? Well, you’d think she was the devil incarnate. Like I said, I certainly don’t agree with her views, but would someone please tell me why she’s bad and The Pretender is still The One???

I agree we ALL have to fight for marriage equality, gay and straight alike. I wish someone would tell the gay community here in SF. I’m seeing a lot of anger at the outcome of the CSC decision, but where were they all when Prop 8 was on the ballot? The level of involvement was almost zero. Easier to blame its passing on others rather than take responsibility for educating and enlightening those people outside of their community.

Okay, time for me to go hide again and pretend I’m in the midst of a nightmare and I’ll be waking up any minute and turn on the news and find out what President Hillary Clinton is accomplishing today.

What SFIndie said. Couldn’t have said it better myself…Thanks, SFIndie, for letting me post this!

Wow. So Ellen and Portia are still A-okay, it seems, along with 18,000 other people. And how about the rest of the people there?

This is disconcerting, to be sure, though not unexpected, I have to say. I wish it was different, but it isn’t.

What I do find incredibly curious is that NO ONE talks about Amendment 2 in Florida, which is equally as bad, if not worse. Why is that? It passed during the 2008 election, too, yet it is completely ignored. This was the concern in FL (and note the state that also has a ban mentioned in the following):

But opponents say the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment isn’t a gay issue, but rather a measure that could negatively affect many heterosexual couples as well.

They point to particular wording in the amendment that they say could lead to unmarried couples — gay and straight — losing hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, and domestic partner health benefits provided by employers.

The proof, they say, is what has happened in other states where similar amendments have passed.

Since Michigan voters approved a ”marriage protection” amendment in 2004, the state Supreme Court has struck down domestic partner benefits, including health insurance and pensions. A battle is also under way in Kentucky to eliminate domestic partner benefits for employees of state universities because of similar legislation.

”This amendment says that because marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else counts,” said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue, the bipartisan organization running the SayNo2 campaign to defeat the amendment. “It could take away existing rights and benefits of Floridians.”

Wow – Michigan, too. And Virgina. South Carolina. A total of forty-one (41) states have defined marriage between a man and a woman.

I know we are supposed to be all excited that a whopping FIVE states consider LGBT people to be equal, but it seems with every step forward, there’s at least one step back. I guess all we can do is keep fighting for equal rights for all people. One day at a time, I reckon…

California!. What a state! We are known for our whacky politics and all-around open-minded, fun-loving, Hollywood-inspired ways. Calling us “yogurt-loving, latte drinking, text-messaging, vegetarian neurotics” is taken as a compliment. If you have a pulse, you are a friend and deserve a big hug.

So you would think that we would welcome giving people who love and are committed to each other their due civil rights.

Well, we did, and then it got taken away by the proponents of Proposition 8. These sour people ran a slick, homophobic, and highly misleading ad-campaign that would have even made David Axelrod blush. They scared enough voters—those who don’t bother to look beyond the hype to learn the facts—into backtracking.

Now comes the critical test. Was Proposition 8 constitutional? May 26th is D (for DECISION) Day. The California Supreme Court will either negate it, recognizing equal protection under the law for all, or maintain discrimination and the taking away of fundamental civil rights from a minority.

So many friends’ lives are affected by this vote. One friend, who did get married during the window when gay marriage was legal here, has been with her now-wife for 30 years. That’s more than most heterosexual marriages last. And that is just one example of many who have experienced a lot of pain along the way and now pray that their marriages will hold up. Other couples are waiting for the word that they, too, can marry the person they love.

So let’s see what happens. In the meantime Iowa, of all places (among others), got it right. How embarrassing to us Californians who thought we were on the forefront of every right idea.

Maybe it is because we have been having people like Lt. Dan Choi speaking out, asking President Obama not to fire him under the policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” recently. Likewise for Lt. Col.Victor Ferenbach, and Major Witt, all calling for a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, so these highly trained, highly decorated people can continue the work they do best on our behalf (I have written about these folks just recently, and SusanUnPC posted an incredible video of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach. They want to continue to serve their country even though their country is treating them like second class citizens.

Except in the State Department. Yes, that Hillary Clinton has made a move that should warm the hearts of everyone who cares about equality and social justice. Check out this article, Gay US Diplomats To Get Equal Benefits:

SECRETARY of State Hillary Clinton has promised to provide equal benefits to partners of homosexual US diplomats stationed overseas, a congressman said.

Howard Berman, head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had sought to require the State Department to offer benefits such as medical care, transport between postings and security training to partners regardless of sexual orientation.

Mr Berman, in a hearing on funding for the Foreign Service, said he would drop his legislative bid as “it is my expectation, based on very recent conversations, that the Secretary of State will move forward with implementing all of the benefits provided in that provision in the very near future”.

The congressman invited to the hearing Michael Guest, the former US ambassador to Romania who in 2007 left the Foreign Service, citing unfair treatment of his partner.

“For 26 years he served our country with distinction and was sadly forced to leave the Foreign Service when he could no longer accept the second-class status accorded his lifetime partner,” said Mr Berman, a Democrat from California.

“But I am heartened that soon no more of our best and brightest will be forced to choose between family and country,” he said.

The ranking Republican member on the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, has supported the effort.

Ms Ros-Lehtinen signed a letter to Mrs Clinton sent in February by Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin who is openly lesbian, warning the State Department risked losing qualified diplomats unless it provided equality to gay partners.

But another Republican lawmaker criticized a separate part of the bill aimed at promoting gay rights.

The funding bill calls on US diplomats to encourage other countries to revise laws that restrict consensual homosexual relations or limit the freedoms of gay people and groups.

Wow. That is HUGE. Really huge. And that pretty much says it all about the difference between Clinton, and Obama. One walks the walk, and one talks and talks.

You may recall that she said on the Ellen Degeneres Show that if elected president (and she would have been had she not been thrown overboard by the DNC), she would grant federal benefits to GLBT people. Here’s the video, just in case you want a refresher (and want to see Hillary again – don’t you miss her? I do…):

As a bonus, watch the second part – Secretary Clinton is hilarious!

Since Hillary wasn’t able to provide rights for all LGBT US citizens, she is doing it for the ones she can in the Diplomatic Corp. Good on her, and good for them. It is a start. And a glimpse of what we all could have had…

Well, get this:

The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military’s ban on service members found to be gay.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn’t be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.

The move comes as President Barack Obama attempts a balancing act on gay rights. He was elected with strong support from the gay community and promised action on a number of issues. But mindful of the complex politics, the White House has moved slowly.

Um, no – a glacier moves slowly. Obama hasn’t moved at all:

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which dates back to the Clinton administration, is a case in point. As one of his first acts as president in 1993, Bill Clinton attempted to end the military’s ban on service by homosexuals. An uproar ensued, and eventually Mr. Clinton signed legislation allowing gays to serve as long as they weren’t open about their sexual preference.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said he would seek to repeal the ban on gays in the military. But since he has taken office, administration officials have been less clear about the matter and its timing.

Last week, the White House was pressed to explain whether the administration would intervene to protect Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Arabic speaker in the Army National Guard. He announced he was gay as part of a plan to challenge the law. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president believes the issue should be dealt with through legislation.

And yes – DADT is a law, and must move through proper channels, but given how Obama has used his Democratic majority to shove exceedingly flawed economic plans down our throats, why has he not used it to push for quality for those willing to serve our country? I’m just asking…As I have mentioned (a thousand times), there are plenty of nations who have GLBT personnel serving openly in the military with NO problems. It is far more of a problem for people to have to hide who they truly are day in and day out – THAT affects morale in a big way.

As for Maj. Witt:

In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform “create an unacceptable risk” to military morale and “unit cohesion.”

But the court ordered the government to show why military discipline would be imperiled by the specific presence of Maj. Witt.

President Obama faced an early March deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obama aides twice filed requests asking for a one-month extension, which the court granted. The administration let the most recent deadline pass without seeking another extension.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the government would defend the law at the trial over Maj. Witt’s dismissal. The decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court “is a procedural decision made because the case is still working its way through the regular judicial process,” she said.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president remains committed to repealing the law “in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security” but added: “Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”

And just what the sam hill is THAT supposed to mean? “In a sensible way”??? Please. What a crock of hooey, and I’m not the only one who thinks so:

Some advocates for gay rights say they are becoming frustrated with what they see as mixed messages on the law on gays in the military. “This is a positive step but it’s in the middle of a slew of negative steps so we’re not really sure what’s going on,” said John Aravosis, an advocate who blogs on the issue.

Mr. Aravosis said he is concerned that the White House Web site section on civil rights was recently edited and some of Mr. Obama’s promises to the gay and lesbian community were no longer listed, including his promise to repeal the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. After complaints, a reference to the military policy was restored.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that the changes were made to “reflect the president’s broad agenda,” but that his commitment to gay and lesbian issues has not changed. “Any suggestions to the contrary are false,” he said.

Oh, well, okay then – NOT. What kind of crap is THAT??? Unfortunately, there are some who buy it, the same people who refuse to be anything but “disappointed” when Obama completely backtracks on promises made (”Well, sure, I’m disappointed he voted for FISA,” or “to extend Faith-based Initiatives,” or “military tribunals,” or…). Oh, wait – like these people:

Other gay-rights advocates are more patient. “We are convinced that the administration is committed to overturning this policy and has plans in place to accomplish this goal and it will be accomplished in due time,” said David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.

Other priority issues for gay advocates loom as well. Mr. Obama will soon nominate a new Supreme Court justice, who will likely be forced to answer questions by the Senate about his or her view of various gay-rights issues that may arise — particularly the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage, which has advanced in many states in recent months. The administration also must decide whether to allow gay and lesbian partners of workers at the federal court to qualify for health-care benefits.

And that is why I am no longer a member of the Human Rights Commission. That, and their throwing their support behind him rather than Clinton, whom they have honored for her work. Yeah. Whatever. Why look at past performance or anything?

As to their “hope,” oh, yes – I am oh-so-sure that Obama has high on his priority list for the new Supreme Court justice to give a big whup about same-sex marriage. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Spare me.

In case you are wondering about Major Witt:

Maj. Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and received multiple commendations and decorations for her service. She “was made an Air Force ‘poster child’ in 1993,” the opinion from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, and the service used her photo in recruitment materials for more than a decade.

Maj. Witt also had a relationship with another woman from July 1997 through August 2003, the opinion said. The partner was not a military employee and the couple’s home was in Spokane, Wash., 250 miles from the base where she was stationed.

According to the lawsuit, Maj. Witt did not tell anyone in the military that she was homosexual. In July 2004, however, the Air Force began investigating her for homosexuality and five months later began proceedings to discharge her. The action left her less than a year short of the 20-year service requirement to obtain a full Air Force pension.

The Ninth Circuit had rejected similar suits in the 1990s. In 2003, however, the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, ruling that the Constitution gives homosexuals “the full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government.”

Citing that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the government would have to do more than show that the don’t ask, don’t tell policy furthered an important interest. Rather, at trial it must show how expelling Maj. Witt “significantly furthers the governments’ interest and whether less intrusive means would” have worked just as well.

“Only then can DADT be measured against the appropriate constitutional standard,” Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court.

The ruling suggested the judges were skeptical that Maj. Witt, a nurse, posed a threat to military discipline. (Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com and Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com)

Oh, thank HEAVENS they got rid of someone like that – whew – I feel so much safer, don’t you? Blech. Sigh.

Well, all things considered, I guess I should be thankful I don’t live in Russia:

Russian Gays Risk Eurovision Confrontation

Russian gay rights activists announced plans today to hold a parade hours before this month’s finals of the Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow, potentially setting the stage for a confrontation with city authorities and extremists.

Moscow’s government has prohibited gay rights marches in the past and Mayor Yuri Luzhkov has drawn international criticism by describing homosexuality as “satanic.” (Emphasis mine)

Holy smokes – “satanic”?? Wow, I wonder when Mayor Luzhkov is going to find his way out of the Middle Ages and into the Twenty-first century? Not that everything is all hunky dory for us in the Good Ol’ U.S. of A., but golly gee – haven’t heard the “homosexuality = Satan” argument in a while…

And considering the size of Pride Parades in the States in major cities, this is telling:

Russian gay rights movement leader Nikolai Alexeyev said he hoped 500 people would join a parade passing through central Moscow.

He said he asked city authorities Tuesday for permission to hold the parade — dubbed Slavic Pride — but added that 100 activists would risk prosecution and march even if it was refused.

City Hall has rejected repeated requests by public organizations to draw attention to gay rights with parades over the past four years, Alexeyev said.

I admit, this surprised me a lot:

Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, but opposition to gay rights remains widespread.

Apparently, some people didn’t get the memo:

In 2006, gay activists trying to lay flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier just outside the Kremlin wall were arrested by riot police and harangued by religious and ultranationalist group members.

Last year, at least one gay rights activist was assaulted during a small protest in Moscow while uniformed police officers stood by and watched.

Dang. Well, that ain’t right. Ahem. I know – mistress of understatement here…

Here’s the thing:

Police expect up to 5,000 visitors to travel to Moscow for the Eurovision competition, which culminates on May 16. Russia won the right to host Eurovision after winning last year’s competition.

Activists say the event is an opportunity to highlight what they describe as official discrimination against sexual minorities.

“On the day of Eurovision, we want this issue to clearly raised at the international level,” Alexeyev said.

Moscow City Hall spokesman Leonid Krutakov was unable to confirm that march organizers had submitted a request, but said the decision on the parade would be taken by Luzhkov.

They won the right to have this competition, a pretty big deal, and well, this may come as a shock to some folks out there, but there are actually some GLBT folks who may just be involved in this competition. I don’t reckon they’ll cotton to being called “satanic” because of it, either. Just a thought. But it could just be me…

Really, all this is to say, yes, we have made some strides in this country. Heck, we can even get legally married in 10% of the states (no Federal benefits, mind you, but hey – whaddya want, equality or something??). But we have a long way to go here yet, that’s for sure. And so do some of our brothers and sisters in Europe…

And one, thankfully, recently received it:

Thank heavens Roxanna Saberi is freed – she never should have been imprisoned in the first place.

And neither should Lt. Choi, and other GLBT soldiers, be imprisoned by a law based on discrimination, forcing a prison of secrecy and lies.

* The following is an Open letter Lt. Choi wrote to Obama and members of Congress:

By Lt. Daniel Choi
Special to CNN

Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:

I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to “choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and to “never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.

I have personally served for a decade under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.

I am committed to applying the leadership lessons I learned at West Point. With 60 other LGBT West Point graduates, I helped form our organization, Knights Out, to fight for the repeal of this discriminatory law and educate cadets and soldiers after the repeal occurs. When I receive emails from deployed soldiers and veterans who feel isolated, alone, and even suicidal because the torment of rejection and discrimination, I remember my leadership training: soldiers cannot feel alone, especially in combat. Leaders must reach out. They can never diminish the fighting spirit of a soldier by tolerating discrimination and isolation. Leaders respect the honor of service. Respecting each soldier’s service is my personal promise.

The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.

My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.

Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.

When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.

Please do not wait to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Please do not fire me.

Very Respectfully,

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard

Or any other military personnel who stand up to this immoral law. Now is the time.

Lt. Choi has been assisted by the ServiceMembers Legal Defense Network (sldn.org), an outstanding organization.

Oh, yay! Obama said he might, maybe, could possibly do something about DADT!! Thank you, Rachel, for your ongoing, breathless support of the One, who surely will keep his promise and change this disastrous law. But just not for these people:

One can certainly see why THIS man had to go – I mean, really – educated at West Point?? An officer? Harrumph – clearly unprepared to serve in the duty of our nation! Good thing they got HIM removed from the service. Cough. Choke.

Oh, and I misspoke – Obama did do something. He wrote a letter. A letter! Saying that if only he could do something, he would. You know, if only he had some power, or position, or something that would enable him to end this absurd policy, one that has destroyed thousands of careers. Oh, if ONLY he could DO something … Ahem. Just more words, words, words, from Obama with no action to back them up.

There have been a number of Arabic Linguists kicked out, while we are in the midst of a war in an Arabic speaking nation (and no, Obama, not Afghanistan):

And another:

Here, Jason Jones from “The Daily Show” highlights just how absurd this act is in his usual “serious” way:

Now, if Bleu can ignore THAT, I think he can manage to do the work he was trained to do, don’t you??

What a waste of talent, time, and money. What a disrespectful way to treat people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. What a horrible way for a nation to treat its citizens. Enough words, Obama.

And speaking of words, Pat Racimora tipped me off to this story at Alternet,
Broken Promise? White House Backs Off Obama’s Pledge to Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act. Oh, goodie – more freakin’ words out of the mouth of Obama backed up by no action, or worse, by a reversal. See, this is exactly the kind of thing I kept telling people he was going to do, that his record did NOT back up these promises of his, but would they listen?? No. And now look where we are:

After ThinkProgress and other outlets noted last week’s changes to the Civil Rights page on whitehouse.gov, watering down language on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Tips-Q noted that the website also has completely eliminated the portion objecting to the Defense of Marriage Act. As late as April 28, the website highlighted President Obama’s commitment to “repealing” DOMA, as a cached image shows:

Today, the website states only that Obama supports full “federal rights for LGBT couples”:

He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

According to ProPublica’s Change Tracker, the changes to the DOMA language were made on April 30. During his campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged to seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, telling The Advocate, “I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.” During the primary campaign, he touted his longtime opposition to DOMA, in a strongly-worded “open letter” to the LGBT community:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. Hillary Clinton has, for YEARS now, worked tirelessly on behalf of the LGBT community. As I have said before, the woman has marched in more Pride Parades than I have. Obama? Zero. NONE. Just to remind everyone of just how much she has done, here is a YouTube link to Joe Salmonese of the Human Rights Campaign singing her praises before stabbing her in the back by supporting Obama.

Oh, but don’t you worry. Obama was quick to return to his “words, just words”:

Last week, after bloggers pointed out Obama’s seeming hypocrisy on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the White House quickly revised the language to once again pledge to “repeal” the policy, rather than just change it. Will the White House similarly fix this mistake, and reinstate Obama’s campaign promise to grant gay couples their full federal rights? (Ali Frick is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.)

Just spare me already. Arabic linguists and other military personnel are still being kicked out of the military. Obama backtracks left and right on DADT, and DOMA. Just changing things back because someone actually noticed doesn’t CHANGE anything. DADT still exists, and so does DOMA. If, and when, Obama actually puts some REAL action behind his words, then I’ll believe him. Until then, he has continued to make clear that he will say and do whatever to appease whichever group he’s talking to at the time to get their praises, accolades, and votes. Once that’s accomplished, he could give a shit about the real people involved. If you don’t believe me, go ask Dan Choi.