I wish it would just do it and get it over with. The public is behind repealing DADT, and while there is less support for repealing DOMA, Democrats can and should argue the conservative argument–which is to leave it up to the states rather than having the federal government step in and take over.

Nevertheless, on gay-rights issue Obama has been a major let down, and that might just be temporary. However, up until at least last week Wednesday he signed the executive memorandum, there was indication that he would seriously be pressing Congress to send him the legislation to sign. Arguably that still hasn’t been done.

You do understand that the President’s Press Secretary told the nation that Obama fully stands behind that DOJ brief on DOMA in its entirety and would not say anything against it, right?

to the author:

Berry claims the White House has a long-tern stratehy for gaining our rights. Why does that strategy have to be a “secret Obama needs to articulate that strategy so it can be judged and he can be held accountable to it.

Shame on folks for apologizing for bigotry.

Kevin: What has the president done to deserve our support? That is the most arrogant phrasing of the question I have ever heard. He is our president, he campaigned on a promise to advocate for us, he took our money and our votes, and we have nothing to show for it.

But like every president, Obama is sworn to uphold the US Constitution. But, like very president, he has turned a blind eye to the way states trample the rights of gay and lesbian citizens and denied us equal treatment before the law.

And as for his other priorities?

FUCK THEM.

If the democratic party and the progressives think that fighting for gay rights will jeopardize their agenda, wait til they see what NOT fighting for them will do.

That position may be a bit extreme, but I am NOT a back burner issue.

On substance, I have a few problems with drawing too bright a line between DOJ and the President and with the arguments in the essay you linked to. To argue that DOJ isn’t the president and therefore we shouldn’t be pissed off about that brief is sort of like saying “the buck stops everywhere else.” If Ashcroft or Gonzalez were AG and those briefs were filed, we would be pissed at Bush. Obama gets the same standard. It’s his DOJ, and whether he wrote the brief or even knew about the brief or not, it’s his responsibility. That language should not have appeared in an Obama DOJ brief. Period.

As for the link, the author is puzzled as to why people are pissed at Obama, whereas I am glad people are pissed at him. We should be all over him (and others) even at the slightest appearance of opposition to our goals. That’s how you get things done. It doesn’t mean we’re getting a case for impeachment ready. It means we’re letting them know we’re paying attention. That’s a good thing. We also have a history of supporting candidates and then getting a shit sandwich in return when it comes to policy. If the reaction seems overwrought, I’d say that’s quite understandable given our troubled relationship with the Democratic Party in recent years.

The essay also informs us that Obama is “no longer your candidate” as if working to get someone elected is the end in and of itself. We worked to get him elected because he made certain promises about how he would govern. This is democratic theory 101. This is accountability. I would much rather have people overreact to perceived slights than not react at all. I would rather have people be impatient than complacent. This is all part of the process.

Here’s another perspective for you:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/hes_not_your_daddy.php

@ Kyle: Civil unions would not give us marriage equality. New Jersey, Vermont, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, all researched the issue and found that the word “marriage” matters. Anything else is tantamount to “separate and unequal.” Plus, state legislatures will not fix the part of DOMA that prohibits us from receiving federal benefits. The bigger picture in my life is having to file tons of paper work and get lawyers and accountants to do the things that hetero couples get automatically. We are already in a “domestic partnership,” and it is a crappy distant 3rd compared to our hetero friends’ marriages. But I agree with you otherwise. :-)

@ Step: You say, “but i find it disturbing that he has no problem using ‘gay people and straight people’ as part of his tired equality rhetoric in speech after speech, yet does nothing to acknowledge the reality of the issue.” The “reality of the issue” is that we aren’t the only people in the US. There is opposition to our issues that could derail the President’s agenda, and then he gets nothing done. Check out the 1993 fiasco with Clinton and DADT. The reality of the issue is that you are disturbed about “tone” and an “agenda,” but the last time I checked, legislation still starts in Congress. You put all of this on the President, but where does our responsibility as a community come into play? When do we start fighting for our own rights and stop letting someone else set our tone and our agenda for us?

@ John: I totally agree that, “The solution lies within our power, not theirs.” The Civil Rights Movement was “successful” because people took responsibility for their own rights and freedoms. They didn’t pass the buck and wait for the President. They engaged in campaign to win the hearts of Americans. We need to do that. If we learned anything from DADT in 1993, it should have been we can’t count on anyone but ourselves, but, as you point out, we didn’t learn that lesson. We got Clinton reelected and he screwed us on DOMA.

When are we going to learn to do for ourselves?

I am also getting impatient with Obama, but I’m not ready to write him off. I think it’s bullshit that a guy who campaigned as someone capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time can’t deal with gay rights at the same time he deals with other supposedly more important issues. It would take very little on his part to make small amounts of progress. The Democratic Party learned all the wrong lessons from the DADT debacle of the early 90s. That lesson: be wary of seeming to0 pro-gay because it can blow up your whole agenda. What they don’t realize is that’s 2009 and a lot has changed. DADT is wildly unpopular by a count of 2-1 in opinion polls. I understand that there are different dynamics within the military itself on this issue and it may not be as easy as the snap of his fingers, but at least put a moratorium on enforcing DADT. You’re the Commander-in-Chief, so grow a pair and at least do that.

At the same time, it is only 6 months into his presidency, and I don’t think his slow pace on these issues is somehow unique to him. Do I think Hillary would be any better on these issues? Absolutely not. Her husband perfected the art of bilking gays for their money and then stabbing them in the back (see DOMA) and I am not convinced that her political instincts are much different than his. This is a problem with the party, not with any particular leader. The solution lies within our power, not theirs.

We should be working on defending our jobs by way of the state and national legislatures. That’s where the focus should be. As for marriage, don’t get me started, because that is a titanic screw-up we’ve done to ourselves as a community. Civil unions would have been just as good, and much more easily achievable. Not that it is Mr. Obama’s business to cater to that issue either. Again, legislatures.

We need to get the hell over ourselves and look at the bigger picture – the economy, the environment, the various international crises, health care, jobs, etc.

so far: fuck up a campaign and look amazing shirtless.

there needs to be more done on the part of gay activitists/organizations to prove that it’s a worthy cause.

i know “civil rights” blah blah blah and “oppression” blah blah blah and “it just isn’t right” blah blah blah. i’m pissed off as much as the ‘mo that this is something the proverbial we even have to do. but that holds true for plenty of other causes. put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

on a certain level, the progress is amazing. we’ve gained some marriage states and chris “typical old white dude” dodd has supported full marriage (while even in the last election cycle, common wisdom was that civil unions were the farthest a “smart” politician could take it).

yet, there’s still plenty to be done.