Comments on: Vanasco: Does WH appointment signal movement on gay military ban?

By: Drewski

Drewski — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:02:25 +0000

I’ve been very critical of Obama’s inaction. I want to support him, in fact I voted for him because of the positions he took during the election. I want to see him succeed, because his success will be built on successes for the American people. Those successes won’t come when the President cares more about a nonexistent consensus than about getting a thing done. I don’t think it’s entirely Obama’s reticence–the Congressional Dems have had some pretty self-serving moments (no need to mention the Republicans, who’d rather see the country collapse just to be vindicated in their bitterness). We gays won’t see any improvement unless and until it’s clear to both parties that we have no problem applying pressure to achieve our goals. There won’t be any progress just waiting for Obama to do right, and this seems to be a surprise to Obama as much as some of his supporters. There is no disloyalty in demanding action from him–is it suddenly unreasonable to call a politician to account on a campaign promise? No. I want to see President Obama summon up the courage and wisdom to lead this country. I want him to succeed in leading this country away from divisive, discriminatory and destructive policies. History will prove that gay issues are not marginal or peripheral. They’re a barometer of Obama’s commitment to equality under the law. Healthcare, energy and financial-sector reform all matter, but in a way, they don’t matter as much as gay rights because we are the major civil rights issue of the moment. When you look back to achievements like womens’ suffrage, establishment of Social Security, and the Civil Rights Act, those events had more long-term impact than almost anything else in the respective timeframes. The Civil Rights Act is still shaping American politics, more than Vietnam or NASA or the Great Society. If Obama does take action, he will be the President who sees gays included in the mainstream. Catholics, Mormons and Baptists are all ready to have a stroke over that, but the majority of the country seem ready for it. Just as the Civil Rights Act sent the racists (and others who believed in selective equality under the law) running for the GOP, so too will gay rights force a realignment of political parties. The Dems won’t be able to turn away from gays–which will have consequences–and the GOP will have to accept our legal standing–which will also have consequences.

By: yodafriend

yodafriend — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:50:14 +0000

@judderwocky

Never give the man credit! What do you think he should’ve done? I know that DADT is just plain stupid. Always have, and always will. Do you think that if you were president, that on the first few days, months that you turned the world 180 degrees?

As, good as that sounds. You still have other people in the government that haven’t even thought about the “GLBT” community. In order to get laws passed, you have to have the support in the government. If Any man could point our fingers and getit in a fairy dust surprise. We would. When you become the C.I.C. You don’t own the United States. You can’t stand in front of a wave and not let a drop behind you.Right now, there are three parties in the white house: Democrats, Conservate Democrats, and the Republicans. We can’t get a filibuster proof vote because the Conservative Democrats are really putting a diaper on the shit factory, their seeing a good view through poop spatterd glasses. For some reason Republicans don’t want to be ruled by a minority; being race, disability,or sex. So they will stand in front of a train, if someone was warning them an hour before hand that the train was coming.

Obama will be our best president since Abraham Lincoln.

By: judderwocky

judderwocky — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:43:44 +0000

A sign that he may do something… still means he isn’t doing it now. He still isn’t keeping his promises.

By: Brian O'Reilly

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:42:07 +0000

I hope all GLBT people put the pressure on the White House and Congress to act on the repeal, and not accept as true every declaration that work is being done. I find it hard to believe that the democratic party has not unfairly bumped repeal of DADT down on the to do list, when the gay rights leadership is so deeply uncritical of the movement on this simple repeal, and deeply defensive of Obama’a lack of attention. The repeals are simple in the sense that no new policy is drafted; rather, a discredited law damaging to national security and disgraceful to our soldiers is just being taken off the books. Obama has signed much more complicated new policy legislation. When the bank bailout or new health care legislation was developed, the government got right down to business, and legislation seems always delivered on time to Obama’s desk on time. I believe answers to these hard questions should be demanded. But rather than ask these questions, far to many activists seem inbred with the democratic party agenda to a very unhealthy extent, accepting every excuse. The gay movement has to raise it’s voice more, instead of defending the president’s measures, which appear designed to appease and extend his calendar, not get an DADT off the books in the ash heap of history.

By: Adrian Quir

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:05:08 +0000

I hope that this interprets as an action beyond the typical Obama lip service. By the way, may I point out to a typographical error:

“may opposes the military ban”

By: Jessica K

Jessica K — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:44:40 +0000

About time!

Holding breath…

By: Wayne M.

Wayne M. — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:44:27 +0000

This is hopeful, but we will see. I believe the President fully and sincerely intends to end “Don’t ask; don’t tell.” However, the combination of Republicans and conservative Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives. At least some of these people need to come on side if congress is going to end DADT and implement other changes our community demands.