Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Remarks on his Executive Order and DOMA today

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:33 PM
Original message
Obama's Remarks on his Executive Order and DOMA today
"In 2007, Michael Guest, the first openly gay Ambassador confirmed by the United States Senate, resigned from the Foreign Service. He loved his career, but he had to leave it in the end -- because he believed that the country he served was failing to implement the principles of equality it espoused abroad. His partner was ineligible for training provided to Ambassadorial spouses; he bore the costs of his partner's transportation to his placements abroad; and his partner did not receive the overseas benefits and allowances given to spouses of Ambassadors.

"It is too late to prevent Ambassador Guest from having to make the choice he made, but today I am proud to issue a Presidential Memorandum that will go a long way toward achieving equality for many of the hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic LGBT Americans serving in our Federal Government -- Americans like Ambassador Guest. In consultation with Secretary Clinton, who in her role as Secretary of State oversees our foreign service employees, and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, who oversees human resource management for our civil service employees, my Administration has identified a number of areas in which greater equality can be achieved under existing law by extending to the same-sex partners of Federal employees many of the same benefits already available to the spouses of heterosexual Federal employees. I am therefore requesting the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to extend the benefits they have identified to the same-sex partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved consistent with Federal law. I am also requesting the heads of all other executive departments and agencies to conduct a review of the benefits they administer to determine which may legally be extended to same-sex partners.

"But this Presidential Memorandum is just a start. Unfortunately, my Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.

"I am also proud to announce my support for an important piece of legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress last month -- the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. This legislation will extend to the same-sex partners of Federal employees the same benefits already enjoyed by the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. The legislation has a number of co-sponsors in both Houses of Congress, but among those many sponsors, I want to recognize one in particular -- Representative Tammy Baldwin, who has been a real leader on this issue, and more broadly on the LGBT struggle for equality. Representative Baldwin, I look forward to working with you to achieve the important objectives set out in this bill as it moves through the legislative process. I also look forward to working with the bill's Senate champions, Senators Lieberman and Collins; I know that they will approach this process with the same spirit of cooperation in pursuit of our shared goals that they bring to all of their work in the Senate.

"Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees is the right thing to do. It is also sound economic policy. Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The Federal Government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue.

"As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled. Through measures like the Presidential Memorandum I am issuing today and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, we will advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded and continue to perfect our Union."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I know that he didn't write it, but ultimately he is responsible
The fact that he didn't personally write the brief makes me only feel slightly less awful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. The DoJ is supposed to be autonomous(?) from the WH aside from giving advice at times tho i believe
While he did appoint some people working there, that does not mean its under his control, and for him to interfere would actually cause him to do what so many on DU kept attacking Bush for(politicizing the DoJ)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitsune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Even if he wasn't aware of it, it still reflects poorly upon him.
At the very least, he could have leaned on them to not use such offensive arguments, or even just release a statement (a statement!) that says he disagrees with the brief. Instead we have to wait nearly a week for him to admit that he's opposed to DOMA.

I'm backing off on him a little because he actually said it out loud, but I'm still disappointed that he hasn't addressed the brief at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. i think he has been fairly consistent on stating he is opposed to DOMA
and i don't expect him to make a statement everytime the DoJ has to defend a law he disagree with

And while the arguments might be considered offensive, be aware that the main claim of comparing gay relationships to incestuous ones that people got from the brief is by pointing to the different laws between states that permits or forbids first cousin marriage(26 states permit first cousin marriage which would mean that a majority of the united states supports incest).

The same goes for the pedophilia case(a number of states permits(or permitted) 16 year olds to marry(with some restrictions or permissions needed) which would mean that any state that permits 16 year olds to marry supports pedophilia.

personal view: i don't think the cases compares gays to any of the two, they points to cases that strengthens the DoJs case which i believe is about same sex marriage legal in one state should be legal in all(the above cases do strengthen the DoJs case which is why they used them.)

While i fully support equal rights i also think the DoJ should do their job to the best of their ability even if i am 100% opposed to what they have to defend(anything less and they would not be doing their job)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitsune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. He's been avoiding the DOMA question for months, and he hasn't been talking up LGBT equality.
It was the neglect, coupled with no movement on DADT and the DoJ brief, that really got everyone so angry.

And they were right to be angry, we had no sign from Obama that he was doing anything. The proclamation he recently signed was essentially the first notice he'd taken of the LGBT community since his election, short a joke about Iowa.

I don't expect him to micromanage the DoJ either, but DOMA is a big deal to an important group in his base, and he should have known this was coming. I fault him for taking so long to address it even after the fact, but at least he has.

And I know that most (hopefully all)DUers don't believe the tripe that was in the DoJ brief, but a lot of the time DU can be startlingly unfriendly to the LGBT rights movement, and the reply from some DUers to our reaction to the issue was depressing at the very least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. i can understand that quite well
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 06:49 PM by Bodhi BloodWave
I've seen some of the reactions and they are indeed depressing, tho a few posts by people in the LGBT community have been equally depressing *sighs deeply* here is hoping for a much better atmosphere on DU for all of us

Just out of personal curiosity,in my post above did i make any sense or just rambling(i'm halfway undecided myself)

I have sent of a few normal letters myself to some people in the senate and house(unsure how much weight they will have tho coming from a Norwegian)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. You missed one little word in your personal view...
"they points to cases that strengthens the DoJs case which i believe is about same sex marriage legal in one state should be legal in all"

The case citations are actually being used to strengthen the DoJ's case that "legal in one state shouldn't be required to be legal in all". The cases cited were of examples of marriages that were legal in one state but not another... which the brief was arguing as a precedent for another type (same sex) of marriage also being allowed to be unrecognized by a state despite recognition in another state.

And yes, legally speaking, the cases cited do indeed strengthen the case against recognition of same sex marriages in states that don't choose to recognize them... which is then, in turn, being used to defend the Federal Policy of not recognizing those marriages, even if the married couple is living in a state where the same sex marriage is legally recognized!!

Thus, while I can marry my first cousin here in California... Nevada has the option to not recognize my marriage... however the Federal Government will recognize this marriage. On the other hand, if I marry a same sex first cousin (not legal here anymore... but pretend I did it during the window when it would've been legal)... then Nevada would still have the option not to recognize the marriage, but the Federal Government, thanks to DOMA, is legally required to not recognize the marriage.

Hence, cousin marrying is more legal than same sex marrying... kind of ironic, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. thanks for adressing my post more in depth since its mostly been ignored elsewhere :)
And it seems i was somewhat unclear, the case in question is that those who sued the government is of the view that same sex marriage legal in one state should be legal in all states(and i fully support them in that view)

The DoJ's duty tho is to defend the government and its laws, of which DOMA sadly enough is a part(until such a time the law is changed) which is why they chose the cases that strengthens the case against recognition of same sex marriage(DOMA) the most.

I might hate that they have to defend this case, but i will fully support them doing their best at fulfilling their duties(since i don't really like the idea of lawyers neglecting their work if they disagree with the case they have been assigned)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. I would have liked for that explanation to come from the White House. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. I agree there, it would be nice, but i guess they are of the belief that it should be obvious n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. wrong
the DoJ pointed to cases that shows that marriages are not always legal across states(which is what i think the lawsuit was about)

And if you think they were equating gay relationships with incestuous ones, be aware that 26 states permit first cousin marriage which in that case means a majority of the united states supports incest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Please!
LOL!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. You mean the Bush holdover lawyer said that. Whatever policy order, he would never say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. A lie.
And then some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's good, but I am interested in more specifics.
He's being pretty careful to not box himself in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
44. I saw a link to the story from another thread this morning.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-Presidential-Memorandum-on-Federal-Benefits-and-Non-Discrimination/

The announcement in the OP seems to correspond pretty closely. From the reading of it, it seems like Hillary had the foresight to "secrete about her midsection" (Flan O'Brien quote from At-Swim-Two-Birds that I've always loved) a "bone" for ready throwing to the GLBT community should the need arise.

I'll leave it to the GLBT community to judge the worth of said bone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitsune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. The memo is meaningless; it's what he said here that matters more.
He actually admitted he wants DOMA repealed. Considering he hadn't mentioned it once since the election, and given some of the recent actions of his government, I'd begun to wonder. :/

If he really does follow through on his promise to overturn DOMA, I will take back some of the things I've said about him. But I need to know he's following through, I need to see and hear that he means it, and that he's pushing Congress to act, and that he's not just bullshitting, because I nearly just put my fist through my TV when that douchewaffle on the Ed Show just claimed that America is founded on the basis of heterosexual marriage, and I am quite frankly no longer able to put up with such base bigotry in the year two-thousand-and-goddamn-nine. If he doesn't follow through, and nothing happens on this front, I don't think I can, in good faith, support the Democratic party any longer. And I don't want that to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. You know what's sad? Even when it's proven that Obama did NOT in fact
write that brief or compare gays to pedophiles, there will remain a portion of the population that will forever believe that. That's just the way it is, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. it's a very tiny portion of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:55 PM
Original message
I know. It's just heartbreaking.
You know, Obama's not perfect, and he hasn't acted fast enough on LGBT issues, but he does not agree with the heinous, hateful language in that brief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. You can actually. He can work to get the law repealed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VespertineIconoclast Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Then forever hate him.
It is your right and prerogative to hate him. You can choose to carry this complete disdain you have of President Obama no matter what he says or does.

I hope that you one day find the peace that you desperately seek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitsune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
21. The problem is that he didn't come out and say that he didn't agree with it.
If he had, I for one would have been in a much better mood this last week. I'm glad he HAS, but it shouldn't take him so long. If he'd been a little more timely, people in the community wouldn't see this memo as nakedly political, and his LGBT fundraiser wouldn't be imploding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
48. I still don't know that he has, has he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
O is 44 Donating Member (740 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
58. He obviously does not agree with
it if he wants it repealed. He has been consistent in saying that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
39. Agree with you there 100%.
He's not perfect. He hasn't acted fast enough. But I just don't see him agreeing with that language, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
42. It would help if he would say that he doesn't agree with that language.
It would help a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gcomeau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. But very loud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. It's a portion of the population deciding to lie.
Like the birthers, or creationists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I know. They're hurt, and with good reason. I can understand their feeling hurt
I just wish they didn't let that hurt turn into reverse hatred and resentment. Nothing ever gets solved that way. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. We have one on this
thread already..too much trouble to get the facts right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
41. Prefer to believe it, stay outraged, for all past disappointments. Understandable, but unhelpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
46. I notice you're not exerting a whole lot of effort to show that this perception is incorrect.
See post #40 for my analysis showing that cousin marrying is more legal than same sex marriage thanks to DOMA... which the DoJ was defending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
55. Compare gays to pedophiles? Seriously????? How absurd, no matter who
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 08:59 PM by sohndrsmith
said it or wrote it. Good grief.

Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents. From NAIC. I'm hesitant to cite the entire document, because while there are very useful and progressive (and healthy) concepts within, there are also just as many shockingly disturbing anti-gay concerns that I have trouble with.

Anyway, on page 3, under "Issues and Concerns":

“Children will be molested by homosexual parents.”
There is no legitimate scientific research connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. Sexual orientation (homosexual or heterosexual) is defined as an adult attraction to other adults. Pedophilia is defined as an adult sexual attraction or perversion to children.(7)

In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian.

More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or another female relative.

The conclusion was found that “a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual.”(8)

7. Lesbian and Gay Rights Project - ACLU. (1999). ACLU Fact Sheet - Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care. New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union.
8. Carole, J. Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals? (1994). Pediatrics, 94 (1)

----
I know it's a small study and rather old, but this wasn't just a random group of 269 people - they were all offenders, and all but TWO were homosexual.

This argument is a sham. My dad was gay... he didn't abuse anyone, but he was massively annoying and difficult at times.... the only "pain" came from the need for secrecy and feeling like there was something wrong with him - or us - or whatever. My mother's alcoholism was far more painful, and still affects me (she's several decades sober now - yay Mom!)

These sort of inaccurate, hateful statements that seem to be latched onto by a more right-wing audience are baseless and disturbing.

Here's an interesting link to check out if interested:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. Good news for all black people! You don't have to sit at the back of the bus now!!
(You just have to sit somewhere near the back, and leave room up front for all the straight white people.)

This seems to be a half-hearted effort to me.

Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, wasn't it a glorious day in Dallas? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Your post sucks and
does no good at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. And yours adds so much.
I guess whatever is handed out to gay people should be good enough for them, right?

Wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. It adds in that I get to give
my opinion of your sucky post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
32. Wow, this thread got off to a good start
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
33. Deleted message. Deleted sub-thread.
:wtf:

WTF, what the hell did I miss?

He wants to work with Congress to repeal DOMA.

Sounds like a good thing to me.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Even if it's good news ..it ends
up in a flame war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
34. Wow, what did I miss????
There are more deleted messages than anything else.

:o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. Just the usual--the Pep Squad cornered the new girl and pulled her hair.
Nothing we haven't seen a thousand times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
59. Oh, OK
Nothing new then........

:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
masuki bance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
38. All the blood's been cleaned up, I wish I saw what happened here. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #38
60. Yeah, don't you hate it when you miss all the fun?
Just like when the moderators lock a juicy thread before you get a chance to respond.

Kill joys!!!

;(


:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
47. ooooooh, we got a memo!
Makes me all tingly...not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. That's exactly what you were all bitching for with regard to
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 08:02 PM by Phx_Dem
DADT -- a temporary stop order to keep gays from being fired until Congress could repeal the law. Right? Well, you just got a temporary order of that gives Fed benefits to gay couples until Congress can repeal DOMA and Obama stated that he didn't support DOMA and he was going to work with Congress to repeal it, but you're still all pissed. Whatever. I'm totally over this issue.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Everyone said Obama needed a symbol good faith
and to be more vocal well he did that today. Now it's talk about crumbs and too little too late
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Had he not done what he did today - that would be better?
I think this is a step in the right direction, personally. And ANY positive step is a good thing in my book. This is a big issue and there are a lot of small minded people in this country who think gay people are somehow less than human. I personally think they should be ignored entirely, but this is not a wrong that will be righted overnight. And doing so might cause more harm than good and draw it out even longer because of haste. What's that phrase, "Slow down fast"? or something. "Hurry slowly"?

Its going to happen - and it's not a matter of "if" but of "when". I'm just as frustrated at the lunacy of this anti argument, but I'd rather this than a declaration or "memo" stating that gay people should be denied even more rights because they are
"sinners" or some such gruesome idea. The nitwits decrying homosexuality need to stop cheating on their spouses, murdering and/or stealing because according to what God tells them, these are violations against Him that there are even "commandments" about! Homosexuality - not mentioned. But I digress.

We are a country that does not tolerate discrimination, and this current, far-reaching and serious violation of such is going to be corrected. It may just not happen in time frame we want or expect or suits us better. But it's GOING to happen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. Yeah, the bar moves every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. It provides a few benefits
(sick leave for partners, the use of medical facilities, access to long-term care benefits, and instruction in foreign languages, if such benefits are otherwise available to spouses) to some gay couples who happen to be federal government employees. It doesn't cover gay people in the military; they can't apply for benefits because if they admit they're gay they'll be discharged. It doesn't provide healthcare (thanks DOMA), nor does it provide federal benefits to gay couples at large. It's a few crumbs at best--a token effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
53. Okay - forgive me, but I'm even MORE confused now.

And these are the things that are confusing me:

1. On a purely constitutional level, I (think) I agree with the President about state's rights - and that this is an important part of the constitutional framework. (I also happen to believe that gay/straight marriage will be legal in all states in the not too distant future). But, then again, how was interracial marriage handled? Was there a constitutional amendment? I have to look that up.

2. That said, the fact that Clinton signed DOMA into law, Obama is ALSO right here, as it is unconstitutional or extra-constitutional, and ( believe imposes a federal referendum which also interferes on state's rights among other things = I think).

3. I was searching on this last night, because there seems to be a convenient loophole defining "federal" employees - as, in my view, our military service members - ultimately led by the FEDERAL Dept of Defense (right?), are NOT considered federal employees. But why? All their records are under the scope of federal oversight, the organization from Secretary of Defense on down is a federal employee (for the most part, I believe). So the Scty of Defense could "come out" legally but a soldier risking his/her life every day on the front lines cannot? And if found out, would receive a dishonorable discharge and therefore denied any/all services/benefits from the Dept of Veterans Affairs. All. They require an honorable discharge to qualify. What idiocy.

This would mess up DADT, wouldn't it? Veterans receive federal benefits through a federal agency D of Veterans Affairs - so veterans fit in how?

DOMA and DADT need to be gone, period.

I think messing with the constitution is a serious matter - and there are certainly times when it's warranted. I want same-sex marriage to be indistinguishable from hetero-sex marriage. The religious argument is obnoxious and not valid. Any male/female couple can get "married" without a whiff of religion anywhere in sight, so that's hogwash that it's somehow sacrosanct in that way.

I think Obama may be seeing the forest for the trees (or which ever is better - I forget). I don't believe for a minute he thinks discrimination against any group is acceptable, including GLBT citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sisters6 Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
54. It was NOT an Exe. Order and it expires when his term(s) expires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
56. Why are there so many deleted messages on this thread? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. It must nave been a doozy........
The fur must have flown and blood must have spilled.

Damn, I hate being late to the party!!!

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Meh, you might be right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC