While Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese may call President names and attack the Administration’s policies, a recent report from his very organization shows that things continue to improve for gay Americans in the five-and-one-half years since George W. Bush took office. In a release last week, HRC heralded the publication of its “The State of the Workplace for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Americans 2005-2006,” a report which finds (among other things) that, “The American workplace has reached a milestone this year with the majority of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner health insurance benefits.”
Since 2001, the year Bush took office, “10 times the number of Fortune companies cover gender identity.” Currently, “Eighty-six percent of Fortune 500 companies also include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policy” You can download the report here.
In announcing this report, Solmonese says a lot of things I agree with, notably:
While protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are stalled in Congress, corporate America continues to surge ahead. This isn’t a Democratic or a Republican issue. It’s an issue of basic fairness and good business.
It is good business to treat gay employees fairly. By doing so, companies both offer incentives to gay people to work for them and create a better work environment for existing employees, increasing worker productivity.
While I am frequently critical of HRC, I do believe their Workplace Program is (on the whole) a good model for what gay groups should be doing to make things better for our community. Instead of trying to politicize our concerns, they work with private companies, helping them implement “fair and equal policies.“
I believe that the best way to improve conditions for gay people in America is to work with private institutions. That HRC is doing that is a credit to the organization. And that these improvements have taken place during the Bush Administration shows that things are not as bad for gay people as the organization’s overheated press releases might suggest.
One reason that the most extreme social conservatives have issued similarly overheated statements (on gay issues) of late is that they have become powerless to stop the increasing openness of Americans to gay people. Americans may not yet be ready for gay marriage, but they are increasingly tolerant of and respectful to their openly gay fellow citizens. Even in an era where the more conservative political party is ascendant.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Oh, sure, the ones that haven’t been exterminated may be fine. But what about all the ones in the Death Camps in the Pac Northwest?
(/sarc)
I personally think it’s a measure of several companies in corporate America that they still institute these policies, despite the fact that gay leftist groups like HRC and NGLTF are allied and associated with stridently anti-business and anti-corporate groups like the Democratic Party.
Then again, for some of them, I think they’ve just figured out that, if you give gay people money and pretend to like them, they’ll do whatever you say.
Note: HRC supports Lieberman over Lamont.
Your quote from Solmonese highlights what’s going on. Protections for gays and lesbians has been improving [i]despite[/i] the actions of Bush and the GOP congress, not because of it. It has been ever increasing since the post-AIDS scare era of the 1980’s was over. Despite the progress in the private sector you still have the failure of the GOP congress to support ENDA, which codifies the private sector practices, and you even had the Bush White House revise a Clinton era policy of protecting federal employees that were fired solely because of their sexual orientation. Pardon me if I don’t jump for joy over all that Bush and the GOP have done for gay rights.
Kudos to HRC for supporting Lieberman over Lamont.
It’s obvious that GWB doesn’t personally have a problem with us, he was a party boy coke-head once upon a time and I don’t believe he personally is homophobic. He bashes us the minimal amount necessary to stir a phlanx of gay-haters up to vote. They seem to be getting wise that he really doesn’t share their hatred and disgust though.
Of course gay rights have expanded during his reign — they are expanding everwhere, all over the world — he is just retarding it the minimal amount necessary to get votes. That is unjustified. When he chats with his wife about gay people he doesn’t state to HER that so-and-so gay couple should be made Constitutionally inferior. He personally doesn’t believe the bigotry he supports with the FMA but he does it anyway. Typical, sick, Republican, conservative craven bullshit.
Support him as you feel you must girls, but realize that of all the gains made by us gay folks, none of it has come as a result of the actions of gay consevatives. NONE. ZERO. NADA. You have just followed the bouncing ball and then, and only when you feel it’s safe, you go “I’m here too…. and I want a tax cut!”
PS:
Hey Dan, Did you get a boyfriend yet?
so i think it was last week when i heard this on the news, but is should be noted if gore had won in 2000 – it would still be 10x the # of Fortune companies cover g.i and 86% percent include s. o. in their n.d.p. for any company to attract and retain the best and the brightest they need to adopt policies that will attract and retain otherwise they risk losing ground to competitors
“The State of the Workplace for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Americans 2005-2006,”
Didn’t this just come out a quarter or so ago?
The title of this article is completely disingenuous to the facts. Bush and his administration have done nothing but pander to their “religious” base in hatred toward gays and lesbians. His only appointment of an openly gay person has been to an AIDS commission (continue to link gays to a disease, thank you very much) A better title would be “HRC report shows progress for gay people despite the Bush era”.
The trend began in the 80s and began to slowly grow in the 90s. These companies realized that they were marginalizing a sizable amount of their workforces, in some cases not being able to acquire or retain talented people. Also, discrimination suits were on the rise due to homophobic actions by employees against other employees. It shows that including everyone in the business process is not just morally right, it makes sound, economic business sense.
Unfortunately, it’s because of government laws and policies that stop gay and lesbian employees from realizing their benefits completely. Take health care: because the IRS doesn’t recognize same-sex partnerships, employees must pay taxes on spousal benefits, as the IRS sees it, you’re providing health care from someone who might as well be an un-related, complete stranger. So much for freedom and equality in the Bush era.
Man, time to hand out some gold medals in “not getting it.”
GPW points up progress that’s occurred under Bush 43, and all the house lefties whine, “but he didn’t do anything.” That’s exactly the point. We’re big boys. We don’t need Big Nanny Government to solve all our problems for us.
Secondary point, that progress (by HRC standards) has occurred points out the dishonesty of those who whine that the ‘Theocons’ are rolling everything backwards and secretly plotting to exterminate all the gay peoples.
Some see the glass as half full, some see it as half empty, and some just whine, “I don’t like the way the waiter looked at me when he brought me this, he’s probably a homophobe!”
And don’t forget all that support and money and good will the gay community gave George during both elections. The big ‘Pro Bush – Pro America’ rally held in San Fran and New York, where tens of thousands of gays turned out to support the President, the military and America as the leader of the free world.
Remember?
Oh, wait….Vera dreamed all that.
//must be the gin….
Dan, it’s gotta make you wonder what Hate Pill some of these commentators are taking when you go to the effort to outline thoughtfully an interesting point about gay progress unabated during Bush’s Presidency and they still see it an opportunity to bash Bush.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blog where the opposing viewpoint so quickly rushes to knee-jerk reactions. But for them to do it over and over, it’s gotta make you wonder why. Mr Moderate, Gramps, Kevin and donny (now with a capital D)… put down the kool aid and think for yourself… for once. Come off the Democrat Plantation and join the growing corps of gays making a difference in our community. Leave the tin foil hats on the Plantation and just walk off the hatred.
“Typically sick craven conservative Republican sick bullshit” followed by “Hey, Dan, did you get a boyfriend?”. I guess this is the lefty version of hate the sin and love the sinner.
#13 — The radical gay left is like radical Islam; they would rather purge heretics and burn infidels than win converts.
#3 anon — July 7, 2006 @ 6:54 pm – July 7, 2006
Note: HRC supports Lieberman over Lamont.
Yes, and HRC also supported the ethically-challenged Alfonse D’Amato over Chuck Schumer in the 1998 NY senate election, to the chagrin of more than a few gay people. Let’s understand: HRC rationalized their support for D’Amato by saying that they would support an incumbent, as long as he isn’t exactly hostile to equal rights for gay people (and D’Amato wasn’t hostile) regardless of his stands on other issues or his possible ethical failings, even if the challenger was equally supportive of equal rights for gay people.
Regarding the post, let me understand.
Since 2001, the year Bush took office, “10 times the number of Fortune companies cover gender identity.” Currently, “Eighty-six percent of Fortune 500 companies also include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policy”
by your juxtaposition of “Since 2001, the year Bush took office” with 10 times the number of Fortune companies cover gender identity.” Currently, “Eighty-six percent of Fortune 500 companies also include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policy” you aren’t seriously suggesting that Bush had anything to do with the increase in the number of Fortune 500 companies that cover gender identity or that 85% of F500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policy, are you? Aside from the fact that the “10 times the number” may be a paltry increase–say, from 1 to 10–if you are really suggesting that, you would also have to admit that Clinton was responsible for the economic boom of the 1990s, that Reagan was responsible for the stock market crash in October 1987, and that Nixon caused the stagflation of the 1970s.
Clinton wasn’t responsible for the economic boom of the 1990s and Reagan wasn’t responsible for the stock market crash in October 1987. (Nixon’s economic policies certainly aggravated the stagflation of the 1970s.) And Bush wasn’t responsible for the increase in the number of F500 companies that provide some modicum of equal protection to gay people.
On the other hand, maybe Bush was responsible for that, what with his niggardly approach to equal rights for gay people, and, indeed, his call for an amendment to the federal constitution enshrining discrimination against gay people therein.
VK & Company,
I’m simply pointing out that the progress has zero to do with Bush & Co. Sorry to burst your bubble and all. You applaud companies passing more non-discrimination policies, yet for some reason you don’t think the government should do the same? You ignore the fact that Bush’s White House reversed such non-discrimination policies codified under Clinton, thus rolling back such policies. Lastly, the rhetoric from Bush & Co. has been about how gay’s search for equality will lead to the disintegration of the family and thus our civilization. How about you wake up and smell the coffee for once and stop turning a blind eye to the rhetoric put out by the current GOP and White House leadership.
I see Guiliani is thinking of running for President. Now there is a Republican worth voting for, if the religious right lets him get away with his pro-gay, pro-choice positions (which we learned from McCain in 2000 they won’t).
Some see the glass as half full, some see it as half empty, and some just whine, “I don’t like the way the waiter looked at me when he brought me this, he’s probably a homophobe!”
I’m more than happy to see the private sector leading the way on gay rights. The question is what’s holding back our elected officials? Look at what happened when the religious right wackos tried to undercut that progress through stock holder actions at annual stock holder meetings. They have been beaten down, sometimes by margins of 98:2. Why is it that the basic concept of rights that has propagated through society despite the rhetoric of the religious right and GOP leadership isn’t getting through to those in their ivory tower in DC? It’s because the moderate Republicans haven’t shown the balls to stand up to these people once and for all. I suppose we’ll just sit here quietly and let the right wing control the agenda because they have an R at the end of their name instead of an I or a D.
Interesting that none of the house lefties who are usually so fussy about ‘personal attacks’ have seen fit to say to their friend Donny, ‘Hey, man, that’s not cool.’ But then again, when a lefty insults a righty, Even Death Threats Against Two Year Old Children Are Fair Game
#18 Mr. Moderate — July 8, 2006 @ 11:35 am – July 8, 2006
I see Guiliani is thinking of running for President. Now there is a Republican worth voting for…
No he isn’t. Before he was mayor of NYC, he was nothing more than a grandstanding, self-aggrandizing prosecutor. I won’t go into the police brutality that occurred during his tenure as mayor (remember the Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo cases?), but his “perp walks” while he was a prosecutor–essentially attempting to try his cases in the media–is to me anathema.
You ignore the fact that Bush’s White House reversed such non-discrimination policies codified under Clinton, thus rolling back such policies.
BZZZT! DNC talking point detected!
Too bad it’s false:
In April 2004, the White House took the unusual step of clarifying its position on protections for gay men and lesbians in government workplaces, protections observed for three decades.
“Longstanding federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation,” the White House said in a statement. “President Bush expects federal agencies to enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected from unfair discrimination at work.”
Which, as GPW pointed out, were codified long before Bill “DOMA and DADT are pro-gay and gay-supportive” took office.
Why should Republicans help gays like you, Mr. Moderate, who make up lies and smears about them, then falsely credit homophobic Democrats?
At least, Patrick in #8, your comment shows you got the point of my post. 🙂
Not disingenuous at all Kevin in #10. V the K got it in #11 when he said that it is the point that he didn’t do anything. “We don’t need Big Nanny Government to solve all our problems for us.” Exactly.
And for those who missed the essence of this post, just re-read (or read for the first time) the last paragraph.
Actually Bush attempted to get a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. The key word is “attempted”. He failed at the endeavor miserably.
So GPW, I will grant you then, that yes, thanks to Bush’s inept leadership, we have had some success involving gay “equality of opportunity” during his Presidency. We owe him a debt of thanks. Way to go Big W!
Its a good thing that he is so incompetent. If it had been Guilianni pushing it, we might be in more trouble by now.
😉 “touche flambe”
NDT,
After groups that actually hold the GOP to account, unlike you guys, they sought to take cover from the decisions of the lower level decision. Notice it was after it was brought up and criticized by LCR and other groups not before. The fact that his legal council office would come up with such a warped decision anyway of course means nothing to you. By the way, the President and every other elected person is a servant of all the people, not just the people who got them elected. He isn’t doing anyone any favors when he makes decisions that uphold our civil liberties, he’s doing his job.
Please explain the link between the progress and the “Bush era.” Spurious as far as I can see.
RE: #21 Just a reminder to all that Raj is the one who thinks that soldiers who die serving our country aren’t heros but that cancer victims are. I think that that puts into perspective its’ judgement and moral standing.
#25 I suppose that you would agree that when Clinton and the Democrat majority enacted DADT that they were not doing their job of protecting civil rights to say the least. And, following the Bush example that you cited, if Gay America and it’s representatives had held them to account, then we would not be suffering under this highlight of the Clinton legacy.
Bobo,
DADT is a military policy statement. We don’t have a civil right to be in the military. Are you speaking about DOMA? If so, then I’d agree 100% with your statement that Clinton and the Democrats let gays down by not putting up a fight on that, and even taking in that rhetoric. Any questions?
Let me make it clear again about Mr. Moderate’s slander and false statements.
This is what he claimed:
You ignore the fact that Bush’s White House reversed such non-discrimination policies codified under Clinton, thus rolling back such policies.
This is factual, referenced reality:
In April 2004, the White House took the unusual step of clarifying its position on protections for gay men and lesbians in government workplaces, protections observed for three decades.
“Longstanding federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation,” the White House said in a statement. “President Bush expects federal agencies to enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected from unfair discrimination at work.”
But, Mr. Moderate, that doesn’t fit your hate-filled Democrat partisan view of the universe, so you try to deny it and make up lies and spin.
And yes, I have a question. If you and your fellow Democrats were so let down by Clinton’s lies and homophobia, why did you endorse him and give him millions of dollars, as you did homophobic bigot John Kerry, and call both of them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
23: ERRRRRRR. That’s a big incorrect buzzer for you. Perhaps you missed the bit about how gay couples have to pay *taxes* on partner benefits. Or how about how gay couples have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to get power of attorney, when that *legal* right is afforded to people who have the right to obtain a marriage license. (and even then, some places just choose to ignore those power of attorney’s by the way) What we need is government that gives equal rights and protection to all citizens, not just heterosexual unions.
Hint: Taxes and legal….stuff that is set by the government… I don’t expect the government to “solve all my problems”, but I sure as shit expect a government is going to make sure all its citizens have the same rights equally.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blog where the opposing viewpoint so quickly rushes to knee-jerk reactions. But for them to do it over and over, it’s gotta make you wonder why. Mr Moderate, Gramps, Kevin and donny (now with a capital D)… put down the kool aid and think for yourself… for once.”
Hahahahahah. Talk about taking the tact you’re citing in the opposition.
#22 North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2006 @ 12:33 pm – July 8, 2006
Which (Clinton’s 1998 executive order that added sexual orientation to an earlier executive order that had previously banned discrimination on other grounds), as GPW pointed out, were codified long before Bill “DOMA and DADT are pro-gay and gay-supportive” took office.
Actually, GPW didn’t point that out in the post that you linked to. What he did point out was that the 1998 executive order “codified” what was considered to be existing practice under 5 USC 2302(b)(10). I’m not sure that it is correct to say that an executive order “codifies” anything, since it is not part of the U.S. Code, but that is a minor quibble. Loosely speaking, the president has the power issue executive orders to provide for the governance of the executive branch, provided the orders do not run afoul of statute.
But let’s look at your implicit claim that the banning of sexual orientation-based discrimination had been codified prior to Clinton’s executive order. GPW’s post links to an LCR press release that bases its contention that such discrimination had been banned on 5 USC 2302(b)(10). Let’s look at that for a minute (I know that you don’t like going to original sources, but, what the heck):
Sec. 2302. Prohibited personnel practices
(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority –
(10) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States;
This is hardly an explicit ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation. To make it even close would require one to believe that “sexual orientation” is necessarily conduct and that “sexual orientation” might not “affect…the performance of others.” It should be obvious that both beliefs are fairly wide of the mark.
Regardless, the import of Clinton’s executive order was succinctly described as follows:
President’s order protects workers: Anti-Gay discrimination banned in civilian jobs
It was only three paragraphs long and received little publicity. But an executive order issued by President Bill Clinton last week, banning anti-Gay discrimination against federal civilian employees, was nevertheless historic, capping a 41-year struggle to end bias in the federal workforce.
Court decisions, civil service rules, and legislation have given Gay federal employees significant – though inconsistent – protection over the years. Clinton’s May 28 action formally adds sexual orientation to Executive Order 11478, which banned job discrimination against federal workers based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap and age.
“The order,” Clinton said in a statement, “provides a uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce and states that policy for the first time in an executive order of the president.”
The White House had previously encouraged agencies to include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. Many did so, but a Blade survey last year turned up a significant number that didn’t. Even many agencies that formally banned anti-Gay job bias failed to publicize enforcement procedures, according to a Gay federal employee group.
It should be evident even to the uninitiated that a department’s failure to publicize an anti-discrimination policy or the availability of enforcement procedures effectively renders whatever policy the department might have a nullity.
The link for the text of 5 USC 2302(b)(10) quoted in #33
DADT was a DOD Administrative policy. Congress codified it into law under Clinton.
However if Clinton had not been elected, at a minimum DADT would still be in place as an Administrative policy. I also think it likely that Congress would have passed it into law anyway. They were already talking about prior to the campaign season.
Clinton can be fairly faulted for many things. Feel free to call his Presidency a disaster if you wish. But you are smoking dope if you think that things would have been better under a Republican Administration. Things might have been different, they would not be better.
Hurm, would I rather work for a boss that genuinely respected and valued me, or one that was only coerced into hiring me under threats of litigation from a government bureaucracy?
In general, I prefer the Free Market to sort these things out. All Government tends to end up doing is picking one group that gets to shit on another group.
If you and your fellow Democrats were so let down by Clinton’s lies and homophobia, why did you endorse him and give him millions of dollars, as you did homophobic bigot John Kerry, and call both of them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
HA! Not only have I always been a registered independent, not only did I never vote for a Democrat until 2004, but I was never especially fond of the Clinton Administration at any point between the years 1992 and 2000. In fact I literally danced in the halls (yes I do mean literally) when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Clinton never let me down because I never put any stock in his Machiavellian presidency to begin with. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
You read your own source, right, Raj?
Court decisions, civil service rules, and legislation have given Gay federal employees significant – though inconsistent – protection over the years.
In short, it WAS codified and it WAS policy. You just like to play coverup for your support of Bill Clinton and DOMA by repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were.
ND30–
Choosing between an ineffective Democrat or an actively hostile Republican is an unhappy choice, but not really a difficult one. No matter what you say about Clinton, he didn’t spend time going out to find new ways to make gay people’s lives more difficult… Bush does.
And if Clinton never did anything good for gay people, why has Bush had to go around overturning so many of his Executive Orders?
38: So legislation is all important eh? How about the Massachusetts law, passed in *1913* which forbid out of staters from getting married in MA. For decades, this law was simply ignored by the commonwealth. Then, when the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same sex couples weren’t receiving equal treatment under the law, Mitt (the shit) Romeny, Governoor of MA, dusted off this law so he could stop those nasty out of state gay and lesbians from marrying in MA.
#39
No matter what you say about Clinton, he didn’t spend time going out to find new ways to make gay people’s lives more difficult… Bush does.
What? I’m guessing that you took at least 8 years off from reality during the 90s? Better yet, I think you’ve taken more than 8 years.
Anonymous, it’s absurd to think, as you claim that the president spends “time going out to find new ways to make gay people’s lives more difficult.” If he did, he’d be putting forward more anti-gay proposals. And all he’s done is devote maybe 4 hours of his entire presidency to pushing a constitutional amendment on marriage.
He probably doesn’t spend much time thinking about gay people. And that’s the point. If the government just leaves us alone, our lives will continue to improve.
#38 North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2006 @ 1:52 pm – July 9, 2006
In short, it WAS codified and it WAS policy.
Unless you know of another statute or executive order on the issue, the relevant one is 5 USC 2302(b)(10) and I described the deficiencies in relying solely on that statute above. If the statute was as clear as you apparently would like to believe it was, why was it inconsistently–if it was applied at all by individual agencies–applied “over the years” in federal employment?
You just like to play coverup for your support of Bill Clinton and DOMA by repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were.
Aside from the fact that you don’t have the slightest idea how I voted in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, it is rather silly for you to suggest that I am “repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were. It seems to me that you would be suggesting that I would be repeatedly pointing out how meaningful Massa Clinton’s gestures were.
Try again
#40 Kevin — July 9, 2006 @ 10:54 pm – July 9, 2006
So legislation is all important eh? How about the Massachusetts law, passed in *1913* which forbid out of staters from getting married in MA.
This is an incorrect characterization of the MA 1913 statute. What the statute did was to render void a marriage that was concluded in Massachusetts between a couple, at least one of whose members was a resident in a state in which the marriage would have been void if conducted there, AND if that member (or those members, if both resided in such a state) intended to return to the other state. If both members of the couple intended to remain as residents of MA, and if the marriage would have been recognized in MA (that is, if they were of sufficient age, degree of non-consanguinity, etc., according to MA state law), the marriage would not be void.
The statute was enacted to discourage inter-racial couples from coming to MA from states in which anti-miscegenation laws were extant to marry (miscegenation was legal in MA), and then returning to their home states, although the statute is much broader in its language. As far as I know, the statute was never enforced for that purpose, but I don’t know whether the town clerks–who issue marriage licenses–actually ever tried to determine whether the out-of-state couples actually met the requirements of their home-states’ marriage requirements. I get the impression that the clerks didn’t, because when the issue came up on regards same-sex marriage, they were complaining (i) that they were not equipped to determine the marriage requirements of other states and (ii) the Romney administration had never given them guidance as to what those requirements were. (So much for Romney’s bloviations on the issue.)
GPW, while it might be absurd for A-nonie to think the current Bush president spends time trying to think of ways to make gay life more difficult… it’s equally absurd for Gramps to argue:
“…But you are smoking dope if you think that things would have been better under a Republican Administration” than under Clinton.
Gramps lets his BushHatred emotion get in the way of prudent practical political judgements again. It would have been far better under George HW Bush #41 and Veep Dan Quayle than under the impeached president Gramps and his buddies voted for… far better for gays.
First, we wouldn’t be in the ditch and trenches fighting state-after-bloody-state for fair treatment… we wouldn’t be fighting against a FMA… we would likely have made more progress in the military and State Depts with Bush #41 in because he wasn’t viewed by the military nor FSOs as anti-military service (unlike the draft dodging, dope smoking Clinton).
No one’s smoking dope, Gramps… unless it’s you for meds.
No matter what you say about Clinton, he didn’t spend time going out to find new ways to make gay people’s lives more difficult… Bush does.
DOMA and DADT don’t make gay peoples’ lives more difficult?
In that case, since federal bans on gay marriage and military service do nothing to make gays’ lives more difficult, what exactly has Bush done that qualifies?
Unless you know of another statute or executive order on the issue, the relevant one is 5 USC 2302(b)(10) and I described the deficiencies in relying solely on that statute above.
Wrong. First you denied the statute existed by claiming it wasn’t part of the US code; then you tried to manipulate the discussion and completely avoid the fact that numerous court cases had already established the fact.
Aside from the fact that you don’t have the slightest idea how I voted in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, it is rather silly for you to suggest that I am “repeatedly pointing out how meaningless Massa Clinton’s gestures were.
I know exactly what I said, Raj.
Your statements, in an attempt to make your massa Clinton’s actions meaningful to gay people, only succeed in proving how meaningless they were, empty and full of spin, meant to cover up your support of massa Clinton’s enactment and support of DADT and DOMA.
#42. “And all he’s done is devote maybe 4 hours of his entire presidency to pushing a constitutional amendment on marriage.”
Wow. And there you have it.
This President, this GREAT MAN, spends “maybe 4 hours” on “pushing a constitutional amendment.” Isn’t it incredible that someone can think so little of the Constitution of the United States of America that they would spend “maybe 4 hours” to amend it? He must think so little of it.
Or, on the other hand, he thinks most highly of the Constitution of the United States of America. In that case, he thinks so very lowly of gay people and can’t push a more insulting and demeaning piece of legislation.
Which is it?
#47 North Dallas Thirty — July 10, 2006 @ 12:05 pm – July 10, 2006
I wrote: Unless you know of another statute or executive order on the issue, the relevant one is 5 USC 2302(b)(10) and I described the deficiencies in relying solely on that statute above.
You wrote. Wrong. First you denied the statute existed by claiming it wasn’t part of the US code.
Apparently, you do not understand the concept of paragraphing. Go back and read #33. If you have your magnifying glass on, you will see that the question that I raised in the first paragraph of my text was whether an executive order “‘codifies’ anything.” It is clear that the statute in issue, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), which was referenced in my second paragraph, is a “codification,” since “USC stands for “United States Code.” There was nothing in that paragraph that question whether 5 USC 2302(b)(10) was a “codification.” (NB: If you do not know what “codification” means, look it up in a dictionary, because I am not going to explain it to you.)
Apparently you do not know any other statute in point. No surprise.
Your lunacy is getting to be boring and tedious.
I understand the concept perfectly, Raj.
You simply are under the delusion that your contradicting your own statements is eliminated by putting them in separate paragraphs.
Better to review what you say before you carelessly spout off again in an attempt to defend your wild, flailing ideas.
#50 North Dallas Thirty — July 10, 2006 @ 7:22 pm – July 10, 2006
Still no reference to a statute. And little if any recognition for grammar. What private school did you go to, that did not teach you anything regarding paragraphing?
Pathetic.
Michigan-Matt says:
Nope, your are the one decidedly smoking dope Michigan-Matt.
First off, the the GLBT struggle for legal recognition has always been “state-by-state”; in fact its often been city-by-city. Thats just the natural progression of most political movements. Are you actually saying that you would have preferred Bush I to impose this in an imperial way from the federal down to the states? I suggest you look up the word “President” and compare it with “King”. You will find there is a difference.
Next, DOMA was the product of a socially conservative Congress consisting of both Democrat and Republican members. The roots of the Act are in response to the HI state Supreme Court case regarding gay marriage. Are you telling me you don’t think Bush I would have signed it?
Third, DADT is the product of a that same conservative block of Congress that created the DOMA. Yes, Clinton screwed up in his handling of the issue primarily by being un-prepared with the backlash there would be in the Pentagon hierarchy, and more importantly, the back-room strings they could pull with Congress.
But the issue of the policy existed before Clinton, you can’t say with any certainty that it wouldn’t actually be worse, under Bush I. Instead of “Don’t Ask”, its far more likely active witch hunting of gay and lesbian servicemembers would be openly encouraged by the Administration, instead of just covertly as it is now.
Incidentally, why doesn’t Bush work with Congress to repeal the policy? Bush could do it, in the same sense that only Nixon could go to China. The American public would support him on it. Cheney would support it, which is a big thing in this Administration.
His glaring inaction on the matter is just as much, if not more, damming than Clinton’s actions. Clinton never really had the power to get rid of DADT. Bush has had the political muscle to be able to do it for quite some time now. But he hasn’t. For someone that enjoys parading and grandstanding around so much as Commander in Chief, and oh-so-publically taking care of “the troops” he should have taken care of this. Its a failure of moral responsibility and leadership on his part. But of course, measured against his many other failures in moral leadership, its to be expected.
Still no reference to a statute.
Lying again, Raj?
It is clear that the statute in issue, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), which was referenced in my second paragraph, is a “codification,” since “USC stands for “United States Code.”
Poor Raj; denying that nondiscrimination is written into the US Code again. Pathetic.