GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

The Meat on the President’s Bone to the Gay Community

by

Slightly more sanguine about the benefits package the President has put together for same-sex partners of federal employees, I still see political posturing at play in the Democrat’s move and said as much in a piece I wrote for Pajamas.  A bone it may be, but a bone with a little meat on it.

Here’s a taste:

With two prominent gay activists, one-time Friend of Bill (Clinton) David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle  bowing out of a Democratic fundraising dinner to be headlined by Vice President Joe Biden later this month, the Obama Administrtion is feeling the heat from the President’s failure to follow through on campaign promises he made to the gay community.

Obama has backtracked on his pledge to repeal the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy barring gay people from serving openly in the military.  The Administration has sidelined legislation to repeal the ban until 2010, with even openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) concurring with his party’s decision to defer consideration of the issue.

Not only have Democrats deferred on Obama’s campaign promises, but the Administration has actively sought to to uphold one law, the Defense of Maraige Act (DOMA), which, candidate Obama pledged to repeal.  DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Earlier this month, Justice Department lawyers filed a legal brief in a Santa Ana, CA federal court defending that law.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.

Comments

  1. Good article (I just read it over at PJM). I don’t think you quite captured what’s behind the anger regarding Obama’s defense of DOMA. It not entirely the act of defending it but also a lot of the arguments contained in the brief that was filed.

    And beyond the fact that “[t]here appears to be no evidence that Mixner or Towle will attend the fundraising dinner”, more activist types are pulling out of the fundraising dinner, even after yesterday’s show and tell.

  3. was the bone thrown to the GLBT community or was it just bait for the anti-gay folk out there. . .yes this gesture was cold water thrown in the face of many activists, but given the fact that much of the change that is being called for by the GLBT activists and community actually lays in the hand of the law-makers aka legislators, well it seems more like the bone was intended to see who might react to such a minor little step toward the line drawn in the sand by those opposed to increasing the rights/benefits/etc directed toward the GLBT community.

    we are in the middle of the HIGH Gay Holidaze with PRIDE events here and there. it will be interesting to see how things play out. there is a little fun being played out in DC right now with the pending recognition of SSM by the district unless Congress intervenes and Congress has until July 6.

    there is that little DNC party where folk are squirming about the absence of some of the gayz. maybe their absence will push some of the DEMS to start pushin the agenda from the legislative side instead of putting all the pressure on the Prez.

  5. bowing out of a Democratic fundraising dinner to be headlined by Vice President Joe Biden later this month,

    Besides, how long can one sit and watch a man gag on his own foot? It’s just pathetic and sad.

  6. Yep. Barry throws a a little milk-bone payoff to sop the pride of the politically active gay community, so they’ll STFU about DADT and DOMA.

    “Well, at least he gave us something…”

    You should now fully comprehend the meaning of the term “token gesture.”

    The only thing I would disagree with on the PJmedia article is that gay organizations should not be so dismissive of Republicans in general. Certainly the evangelical Christian minority is a lost cause, but there’s more than a few politically conservative folks out there who either

    -Don’t care about what you do at home/ think the Feds should mind their own stinkin’ business (AKA South Park Republicans),

    -Are socially conservative, but respect the decisions of their local legislatures,

    -Are regularly in agreement with the politically conservative/Republican folks (eg small/local govt, or 2nd Amendment), but mostly independent

    I myself would not compare liberal gay groups to the “conservative Christian right.” If nothing else, at least some of those folks fall into one of the categories I describe above. Two groups I do consider parallel are the Kossacks/HuffPo brigades and the evangelical conservative Christians. The former were seen by many Democratic candidates as extremely useful organizers and fund-raisers, and their relatively extreme positions on some issues (such as Iraq) tended to establish them as show-stoppers in opposition to otherwise reasonable left candidates.

    On the other hand, the evangelicals hold a similar position on the other side of the aisle, although they might not be as productive as fund-raisers. Still, they tend to shoot down otherwise good possibilities as GOP standard-bearers if they don’t toe the line with respect to gay marriage and the outright outlawing of abortion.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you could re-incarnate Barry Goldwater with Ronny Reagan’s communication skills, and Churchill’s brilliance & wit, and he still wouldn’t get anywhere today if he was pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion) and/or gay-tolerant.

    Heck, H2O all by his lonesome would get into trouble, considering he ended up in the pro-choice, according to this article from Reason Online.

    Today’s conservatives will balk at Goldwater’s social views. He initially welcomed the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. “I think that abortion should be legalized,” he wrote to a constituent in 1973, “because whether it is legal or not, women are going to have it done.” He quickly adopted a vaguer stance, dropping his talk about legalization and telling constituents “the issue [is] squarely up to each state legislature.” After leaving the Senate in 1986, however, he came out explicitly in favor of abortion rights. He also became an outspoken advocate of gay rights, not only calling for an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military but endorsing anti-discrimination legislation as well.

    Decades earlier, Goldwater had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act precisely on the grounds that its anti-discrimination clauses would infringe on states’ rights and individual property rights. His turnaround on anti-discrimination legislation has never been fully explained, though a 1994 statement included in Pure Goldwater supports the idea that his reasons were more personal than philosophical. “My grandchildren and great-grandchildren are growing up in Arizona,” he said. “Some of them are gay, some of them aren’t. But because Arizona doesn’t have a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, they may not all get a fair shake.”

    Yep, crazy ole Barry. Crazy ole “MR. CONSERVATIVE” Barry Goldwater…

    Hmm. Maybe we should try to make the label “Goldwater conservative” mean something again? I’d sure as Hell vote for someone like that before I went for McCain, Huckabee, or Romney…

  7. Oh, urk.

    When I said

    I myself would not compare liberal gay groups to the “conservative Christian right.” If nothing else, at least some of those folks fall into one of the categories I describe above. Two groups I do consider parallel are the Kossacks/HuffPo brigades and the evangelical conservative Christians.

    I meant to say that generically “conservative Christians” may be equally well-labeled as socially conservative, but respecting local/State initiative with respect to gay marriage, or socially conservative but opposing any significant government intrusion into private life.

    What many Americans term “conservative Christian” would be more accurately termed “conservative evangelical Christian.”