Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Obama playing political football with gay Americans?

Perhaps, we might be able to get to the bottom of the Barack Obama’s changing stance on gay marriage if some leading gay rights’ activists were more interested in advocating for gay people than in agitating for Democratic politicians:

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR OWN LYING EYES? Senior White House aide: 1996 Obama gay marriage questionnaire is a fake, even though Obama signed it. Presumably the White House is demanding release of the original long-form questionnaire.

While HRC is silent, gay bloggers and blogreses are asking questions.  At Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen feels like she’s “watching a denial from the Obama Administration of Barack Obama’s 1996 position on marriage equality in the face of documentation that makes the denial appear to be a lie. It looks to me to be an attempt at a history rewrite“:

I can’t imagine that this isn’t going to cause problems between the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and the Obama Administration, and it will require someone more senior to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in an attempt to straighten this out.

Once again, gay and lesbian bloggers (and blogresses), working on a shoestring, are doing the work the national gay organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, fancy offices and expense accounts refuse to do.

Does seem Obama arrives at his positions on gay issues, not on their merits, but on their politically expediency.

It seems he supported state recognition of same-sex marriage in his first campaign, yet subsequently never marched in any gay pride parade — or otherwise participated in such celebrations.  You’d think national gay groups would be asking questions, especially given the president’s aggressive solicitation of gay money and votes.

Kudos to the gay leftie bloggers unwilling to serve as lickspittles to a Democratic president with whom they are, by and large, ideologically in sync.  Would it we could say the same thing for the national gay groups.  But, for them it seems, fealty to the Democratic Party — and its standard bearers — remains the highest bond.

Share

23 Comments

  1. “It seems he supported state recognition of same-sex marriage in his first campaign, yet subsequently never marched in any gay pride parade — or otherwise participated in such celebrations. You’d think national gay groups would be asking questions, especially given the president’s aggressive solicitation of gay money and votes.”

    He’d never be elected President if he walked in LGBT parades. In as much as you to choose to engage in denial, Obama has done more than expected for the LGBT community, exclusive of marriage. The United States is not a larger version of inbred Europe or Jacobin philosophy. So he’s a closeted homosexual/bisexual, what is your personal problem with him not stating his sexual preferences on his sleeve? The bar was lowered for homosexuals/bisexuals with the revision of the ALIMPC in 1955. What other special rights do you want?

    Comment by RJLigier — June 18, 2011 @ 6:29 am - June 18, 2011

  2. So attending a LGBT parade is a reason to not vote for a presidential candidate? Where the he!! do you come up with crap like that?

    Comment by Auntie Dogsh!t — June 18, 2011 @ 10:01 am - June 18, 2011

  3. What, Obama is a liar? Wow. Didn’t see that one coming.

    Comment by Robert — June 18, 2011 @ 10:24 am - June 18, 2011

  4. Obama uses everyone as a political pawn; the truth is he’s not that good of a chess player.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — June 18, 2011 @ 11:19 am - June 18, 2011

  5. In as much as gay “pride” parades sometimes contain lewd behavior–or am I getting them mixed up with that Castro street thing?–any participation in one could be problematic for a presidential hopeful. On the other hand, as traditional sexual/familial values continue to collapse and as this fringe sex group continues to exert influence out of all proportion to its size and can terrorize–you better approve of us or you’re a BIGOT!!!!!–morally fluid politicians and citizens into supporting them, marching in a “pride” parade could become necessary for political success.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 11:25 am - June 18, 2011

  6. And B. Daniel, why do we need gay marriage or “relationship recognition”–love that phrase! it ranks right up there with “undocumented worker” and “climate change” on the Orwellian word games chart–when, as you yourself have admitted, gays can and already are living free and open lives, complete with mates, without it?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 11:32 am - June 18, 2011

  7. via Washington Blade
    The White House is backing off of the comments Pfeiffer made on Friday on Obama’s 1996 statement in support of same-sex marriage. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, addressed the issue in a statement: “Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the president’s views are clear,” Inouye said. “He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ signed into law the hate crimes bill, made the decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA and expanded federal benefits for same sex partners of federal employees.” Inouye didn’t respond to a further question from the Washington Blade to verify whether the White House believes the president in fact filled out the questionnaire in 1996.
    jmg

    Comment by rusty — June 18, 2011 @ 12:11 pm - June 18, 2011

  8. Nope, Miss Dogma, but it does show commitment to the gay community. Personally, I could care less if a candidate participates in the parade but if you’re going to put the guy (or gal) forward as some champion of gay people, then you should wonder why he hasn’t participated in such celebrations.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 18, 2011 @ 1:28 pm - June 18, 2011

  9. I’m not that sick freak Dogma! There are countless politicians who attend Gay Pride Parades, and in some cities, it’s pretty much a mandate to be there. I was calling “bullsh!t” on RJL’s statement that Americans are so bigoted they’d hold it against a candidate for attending.

    Comment by Auntie Dogsh!t — June 18, 2011 @ 2:02 pm - June 18, 2011

  10. No point in HRC or other gay groups asking questions when they’ve already decided to endorse him anyway. If they tried to put pressure on him, the ridiculously partisan nature of their default endorsement would risk being exposed.

    Comment by Kurt — June 18, 2011 @ 3:15 pm - June 18, 2011

  11. NEWSFLASH:

    Obama plays the mainstream political game.

    Give it up, Daniel.

    You’ve beat that dead horse.

    Obama is like all the rest.

    *Moving on*

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 3:56 am - June 19, 2011

  12. Kurt, pretty much sums it up.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 19, 2011 @ 1:48 pm - June 19, 2011

  13. I was expecting better flaming on this one.. You guys have really let me down!!!! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 19, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - June 19, 2011

  14. “Is Obama playing political football with gay Americans?”
    Yes, but think of it this way – I hear gay rights activists saying pretty frequently that they don’t want any kind of special privileges, they just want equality. Congratulations, President Obama is treating you the same way he treats everyone else.

    Comment by AndyN — June 19, 2011 @ 9:41 pm - June 19, 2011

  15. Let’s not forget to hold the Republican party accountable for opposing all gay rights, including marriage, adoption, military service, and immigration.
    If we’re going to withhold money let’s make sure to hold them all equally accountable.

    Comment by Tim — June 20, 2011 @ 11:10 am - June 20, 2011

  16. Let’s not forget to hold the Republican party accountable for opposing all gay rights, including marriage, adoption, military service, and immigration.

    Not a single one of those things you listed is in any way, shape, or form a right.

    Each and every one of them is a privilege, NOT constitutionally guaranteed, and certainly subject to a decision by the voters and their representatives on to whom it will be extended.

    Furthermore, Tim, not a single one of those is denied to a gay person by virtue of their sexual orientation. They are denied on the basis of your being unwilling to accept or meet their requirements. You might as well argue that the hybrid car tax credit is discriminatory because you don’t want to buy a hybrid, or the child tax credit must be given to everyone whether they have a child or not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2011 @ 11:40 am - June 20, 2011

  17. @ND30 typical apologist. Specially since the courts have proven you wrong, on marriage, adoption, and DADT. But I suppose that you think they’re unqualified to make that ascertainment since you just ignore that.

    Comment by Tim — June 20, 2011 @ 12:28 pm - June 20, 2011

  18. Specially since the courts have proven you wrong, on marriage, adoption, and DADT.

    Which courts?

    Baker v. Nelson, for one, is established precedent.

    DOMA has been successfully defended and upheld on the Federal level several times already, as was DADT and as were adoption bans. In fact, the overwhelming legal precedent, if one counts the number of decisions and looks at the level at which they have been made, has been that states and the Federal government are well within their powers when they create and enforce standards for all of these things.

    All of which you and your fellow screaming liberals insisted were wrong and evil. Indeed, you’re already trying to get Justice Thomas kicked off the court by using smears and lies. You yourself have stated that judicial agreements with which you disagree are wrong and that the judges involved were biased and bigoted.

    But you demonstrate the point. Gay-sex liberals like yourself don’t care about law, the judiciary, or anything of the sort; you just want whatever you want, when you want it, and you’ll make up a reason for why you “deserve” it, even if it involves selective enforcement, outright suppression of dissenting viewpoints, and all the other blathering that you do that makes it obvious that your screaming “equality” is nothing but buzzword hypocrisy.

    You DON’T want to be equal, Timmeh. You have proven that, when you ARE treated equally, you lose. But instead of evaluating why that is, you run screaming to the courts to force people to treat you unequally. Your whining here is nothing more than that of a spoiled brat.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2011 @ 1:44 pm - June 20, 2011

  19. I sure was an over active 17 year old clamoring to keep Thomas from his appointment.. I remember skipping school and…oh yeah that didn’t happen. Typical bs from you though.
    DADT was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court and not opposed by the Supreme court. Twice Witt vs Dept Air force and Log Cabin Republicans v. United States
    DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management in boston Federal court, and marriage has been found to be a fundamental right since the 1830′s.

    Again and again and again, you decry equal rights to gays, and since you ignore huge tracts of information to cherry pick facts from both court cases and news stories it is an intentional choice on your part to disenfranchise your fellow gays and lesbians from honorable service, marriage, and children. A choice that is both deplorable and despicable.
    The fact that you feel compelled to do it over and over again even in the face of over whelming evidence is merely a symptom of your own condition, one that was once imposed on you but now worn proudly as if some would reward you for beating back at your fellow gays. Go and join Exodus, go and join the Ex-gays, you both literally quote the same tracts and stories.

    Comment by Tim — June 20, 2011 @ 2:34 pm - June 20, 2011

  20. DADT was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court and not opposed by the Supreme court. Twice Witt vs Dept Air force and Log Cabin Republicans v. United States

    Wrong.

    The Supreme Court issued an order Friday afternoon allowing the Obama Administration to continue to enforce the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on openly gay military members while the Justice Department appeals a lower court ruling that found the policy is unconstitutional.

    Acting without explanation or recorded dissent, the justices rejected an application from the Log Cabin Republicans that would have restored a lower judge’s order prohibiting discharges and investigations under the 1993 law mandating “don’t ask.”

    Next:

    DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management in boston Federal court

    But has already been upheld by the Federal Courts of Appeal and supported by the Supreme Court, both of which outrank the Boston judge.

    marriage has been found to be a fundamental right since the 1830′s

    By definition a fundamental right cannot be denied to anyone.

    Therefore, laws banning child, interspecies, incestuous, and plural marriages would be unconstitutional if your laughably-inadequate argument was followed.

    Furthermore, the same Supreme Court justices that decided Loving v. Virginia, which was based on clearly-elucidated prohibitions against racial discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment and as supported by the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, summarily dismissed a gay-sex marriage case that invoked Loving, Baker v. Nelson, “for want of a substantial federal question”.

    I am educated on this issue, Tim, and can cite facts to back up my assertion. You have nothing but tantrums and screaming, just like the ignorant child you are and continue to be.

    “My fellow gays and lesbians”? You are a pedophile who excuses child rape and molestation by gays, a horrific bigot who demands state power be used to suppress Christianity and strip Christians of the vote, and a welfare mooch who insists that he deserves special treatment and payouts because of his sexual orientation.

    What do I have in common with you? Why would I even want to be associated with you, given what you endorse and support? All you do is demonstrate that gays and lesbians are welfare-addicted, child-molesting, antireligious bigots.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 20, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - June 20, 2011

  21. After you again distort what few cases you site, The Supreme court did not over turn the ruling on DADT they overturned the stay which given the scope on the injunction as well as the considerable arguments of the DoD they were wise to do. The case proceeds with merit and if it should reach the Supreme court I have every confidence that it will win. Which is why the DoD lobbied congress to overturn the law before the courts abolished it.

    Again equating homosexuality with pedophilia is the last most desperate act of a person that clearly lost the argument years ago. Therefore, laws banning child, interspecies, incestuous, and plural marriages would be unconstitutional if your laughably-inadequate argument was followed.”
    After all the law clearly applies to two citizens of consenting age, something you pretend that it doesn’t. I guess that’s because you follow the biblical tradition of child brides and no age of consent.
    And yes after debating you for years I have moved from simple agnostic to fervent atheist who believes that dogmatic religion does more harm than good.

    Comment by Tim — June 20, 2011 @ 5:58 pm - June 20, 2011

  22. After you again distort what few cases you site

    That’s right, I cited. With links, quotations, and everything.

    Amazing how intelligent, educated conservatives can do that, while screaming gay liberals like yourself can’t.

    Probably because childish tantrums take so much less effort, just like your glitter-throwing counterparts are demonstrating.

    Again equating homosexuality with pedophilia is the last most desperate act of a person that clearly lost the argument years ago….After all the law clearly applies to two citizens of consenting age, something you pretend that it doesn’t.

    The law also states that marriage is between a man and a woman. You don’t respect that, insist that you have the right to marry to whatever you are sexually attracted, and demand that the law be arbitrarily struck down.

    Furthermore, Timmeh, you have stated there is nothing wrong with having sex with children who are under the age of consent and that the law should not apply to gays and lesbians who do it.

    Which also neatly undercuts your argument about the law, since you and your fellow gay and lesbian people feel free to disregard it at will.

    Grownups have to think of the big picture. You are a tantrum-throwing child who can’t understand why Mommy and Daddy won’t spend all of their money to buy you licorice whips.

    Now hush while adults are talking. (Thanks Livewire. ;) )

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2011 @ 12:04 am - June 21, 2011

  23. After you again distort what few cases you site

    That’s right, I cited. With links, quotations, and everything.

    Amazing how intelligent, educated conservatives can do that, while screaming gay liberals like yourself can’t. Probably because childish tantrums take so much less effort, just like your glitter-throwing counterparts are demonstrating.

    Again equating homosexuality with pedophilia is the last most desperate act of a person that clearly lost the argument years ago….After all the law clearly applies to two citizens of consenting age, something you pretend that it doesn’t.

    The law also states that marriage is between a man and a woman. You don’t respect that, insist that you have the right to marry to whatever you are sexually attracted, and demand that the law be arbitrarily struck down.

    Furthermore, Timmeh, you have stated there is nothing wrong with having sex with children who are under the age of consent and that the law should not apply to gays and lesbians who do it. Which also neatly undercuts your argument about the law, since you and your fellow gay and lesbian people feel free to disregard it at will.

    Grownups have to think of the big picture. You are a tantrum-throwing eight-year-old who is screaming at the top of his lungs because Mommy and Daddy won’t buy him a car like his eighteen-year-old brother.

    Now hush; adults are talking. (Thanks Livewire. ;) )

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2011 @ 12:06 am - June 21, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.