A gay guy catches on...

Being Barack means never having to say you’re sorry

gays should be ripping Obama a new one with double the veracity they did with Bush...

...But they'll stay silent...giving him a second, third, and fourth chance...

Just like the National Organization for Women did with Bill Clinton...suck up for politics and throw principles by the wayside...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Damn. If we could only get them to hate him quicker.

__________________
Don't take any of it too seriously.

As well he should have, it was a state proposition, was not unique to the African American community (not that that should matter either) - as president of the U.S. he'd have no business getting involved.

The gay community was not happy with Bush, or Clinton, nor are they happy with Obama.

Just as Clinton did. They should be, and are I'm sure, upset about this.

What kind of mush-brained R-tard even constructed that sentence. Obama has done nothing to screw the gay community, he's simply not gone out of his way to give them what they want - in some cases not living up to his campaign promises.

What, Obama, a typical politician? Who'd have thunk it?

His action to direct federal benefits to same-sex partners is not an apology - and it is more than Bush1, Bush2, or Clinton ever did for the gay community... so if you're wondering why the aren't completely disgruntled with Obama, despite not being happy with him... there's your answer - not exactly rocket science is it.

Not to mention the fact that the guy hasn't been in office but 150 days... hmm... worst financial crisis in modern history, war on terror, failing healthcare system... maybe the gay community's desires aren't exactly at the top of the list.

Post this again in 3.5 years when he still hasn't made good on his promises - and if the gay community is still placated by his half-hearted gestures - then I'll agree with you.

__________________
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous."
-William Proxmire



“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” - Mark Twain

He promised he would get rid of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell".

It would take him less than 20 seconds to sign an executive order suspending the policy.

Yup. Every president-to-be makes a lot of promises they either intend or don't intend to keep... and ultimately don't keep them.

It might take him 20 seconds to sign the order - but I'm sure there are ramifications of doing so that are preventing him from doing it. How many top generals might resign? How much money would it cost to give homosexual sensitivity training to the current troops to prevent all the hate crimes that will inevitably occur as a result.

I'm just surprised the military isn't begging Obama to change the policy, as bad as they are hurting for new recruits, I'd think they'd benefit in terms of numbers of enlistments if it was changed...

But who knows. Maybe Obama is a homophobe that lied to get elected.

I think it is funny that the right, who was critical of Obama because he was courting the gay constituency, was upset that he'd be too pro gay... now they criticize him for NOT following through with his promise to the gay community - as if they actually give a $h!t.

of course Obama is just another typical politician, making campaign promises with no intention of keeping them - if I had thought he was sincere during the election, I MIGHT have voted for him... but I knew back then he wasn't, and stated as much in a number of forums I was posting on at the time.

__________________
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous."
-William Proxmire



“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” - Mark Twain

I think it's funny that gays make excuses for him.

You quote a gay guy criticizing him on it.
But then you generalize an opposite response.

I've seen quite a few gay blogs pissed at Obama on the issue.
There is a gay / Democrat fund-raiser coming up, and people are talking about it as to whether or not there will be some boycotting backlash.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

This is actually false.
Congress passed a law (under Clinton) excluding gays from the military.

Clinton turned around and gave "relevance" to the law. Or rather, he lowered the relevance of the law...
Before Clinton, the military treated the law as something primary to pursue enforcement upon. Asking it upon entrance into the military, whereas questions on other military law violations are not asked.
It's also against military law for adultery, but they don't ask that in the entrance.
They don't set up stings to enforce against military adultery.

Obama can't say "this law doesn't exist".

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

He DOES have the power to suspend it.
He hasn't.

Under claim of authority over the military he CAN .
Presidential executive orders have the force and effect of law.

I think it's funny that you're defending him.

I'm just recognizing the facts.

So Congress passes a law, and you think that can just go away by waving a President's hands?
If CLINTON had been the one to say "The military needs to abide by this rule I created", then I would agree with you.
But Congress passed a law, which Clinton actually signed (for which I am pissed at him, but understand the circumstances).

The following web-site gives a description. I think they're crap as far as their attitude towards gays in the military, but they are spot-on regarding the implications of the legal situation.

Contrary to inaccurate news reports, which persist to this day, the DADT policy that President Clinton formally proposed on July 19, 1993, was never adopted or codified in law. (See letter from Rep. Steve Buyer, Chairman of the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, excerpted below.)

The only compromise accepted in 1993 was to omit "the question" about homosexuality that used to appear with other routine inquiries on induction forms. Congress nevertheless authorized restoration of the question by a future Secretary of Defense, without additional legislation. ....

Language of the 1993 law, which was passed with bi-partisan, veto-proof majorities, is substantially the same as Defense Department (DoD) regulations in effect since 1981, twelve years before Clinton took office. Those regulations, which previously had been upheld by the federal courts as constitutional, set out several reasons why homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Most news reports and commentaries, unfortunately, do not mention the statute or the sound premises on which it is based. The New York Times erroneously reported, for example, that the president’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is "now enshrined in law." (Dec. 25, 1999)

Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military

What exists as a LEGISLATED LAW was passed by Congress. Obama is commander in chief, but he couldn't arbitrarily change laws enacted by Congress.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara